Talk:Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov

Ship laid down when?

Text says February 1888 infobox August 1889, which one is that? Crook1 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 12 Dvenadsat Apostolov - Restoration, cropped.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 12 Dvenadsat Apostolov - Restoration, cropped.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 26, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-03-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Dvenadsat Apostolov was a pre-dreadnought battleship built for the Imperial Russian Navy, the sole ship of her class. Launched in 1890, she entered service with the Black Sea Fleet in 1893, taking part in the failed attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. Decommissioned and disarmed in 1911, she was used as a stand-in for the title ship during the 1925 filming of the Battleship Potemkin before finally being scrapped in 1931.

Lithograph credit: Stadler and Pattinot, after Vasily Ignatius; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• Le mage
• Noisy pitta
• Roger B. Chaffee

RFC: Should the citation notes in the article link to their corresponding citations in the bibliography

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to switch to sfn / harvnb referencing, which would link to the bibliography and thus improve reader-friendliness. WP:CITEVAR forbids unilateral changes based on a single editor's personal preference, not changes that are supported by a consensus on the talk page. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the citation notes in the article link to their corresponding citations in the bibliography. I.e. compare

• Revision of 13:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

to

• Revision of 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There is pretty clear consensus to change the style to use {{harvnb}}/{{sfn}} -style referencing. Can we close this RfC and move forward? sbb (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

!Votes

• Yes, per duh, mostly. This is a useful feature, and is much more reader-friendly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Irrelevant as adding such links violates WP:CITEVAR--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  WP:CITEVAR is for changes that are "merely on the grounds of personal preference...". This is not merely personal preference, this is based on a significant increase in reader-friendliness. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• No - Clearly violates CITEVAR, hair-splitting about "significant increase in reader-friendliness" notwithstanding. BilCat (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @BilCat: CITEVAR does not forbid us from choosing improved citation formats just because the original author does not like it. Readers come first, not editors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • And that's where you're wrong. Otherwise people would be arguing that putting the year of publication in one spot or another improves the experience for the reader. CITEVAR forestalls all such arguments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Of course it does. Anyone could use that argument about any of the various styles that they prefer, and that would make the guideline useless. BilCat (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
      • No, it does not. Consensus can always overrules the first editor's preferences, otherwise improvements would be impossible. Articles are written for readers, not for editors. See also WP:1Q. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Please don't WP:BLUDGEON. BilCat (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• CITEVAR says to avoid a change in style "without first seeking consensus for the change". Since this discussion's purpose is to seek consensus, it does not make sense to apply that anymore – rather, we should discuss the change on its merits. In my opinion, having linked citation notes is useful and reader-friendly, so yes, it should be the style used in this article. I believe it to be a direct improvement in fact, and I struggle to find a reason that it should be avoided. — Goszei (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: more user friendly and convenient. No reason against it except maintaining the status quo? --Ita140188 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• I was alerted to this discussion. Has there been any movement over the last couple of years to weaken or set aside WP:CITEVAR in some cases? It used to be iron-clad; I hadn't heard that that had changed, but I'm a bit out of the loop. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - definitely an improvement, reader's can see the full reference inline which makes it a useful feature. Readers always come first, and CITEVAR is just a guideline, not an excuse to prevent improvements to articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Question about RFC question: The RFC question states "Should the citation notes in the articles..." does this mean this article or all articles or an undefined subset of articles? Is this an attempt to change what CITEVAR means for all articles?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed ... It would be very bad if this RfC passes with an unknown scope. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Typo, no s. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for fixing what was obviously a typo. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, in the scope of this article only. WP:CITEVAR says If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. The RfC is seeking consensus for a change. The linked citations are more useful for readers. Schazjmd (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Note that the change didn't just provide linking back to the long reference, it also added the year - this is arguably a change in format even if linking isn't (and there are probably ways of linking without changing the cite from "Fred p. 287" to Fred 1897, p. 287".Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes It is an important feature and user friendly.Sea Ane (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is more reader-friendly per Headbomb. -Idealigic (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: It adds semantic information to the wikitext (i.e., to be able to be machine-processed besides by just the Mediawiki engine). It also adds complete citation information in the hover text. It is an aid to accessibility. sbb (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Per 13:38: it is hard to prove the article if all your lead is a single last name. --DePlume (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  umm... what are you talking about? What is "13:38"? I see, you were referring to Headbomb's edit time of 13:38 (the first edit link). Look at the "Footnotes" section of the two article links. That's what the RfC is about, whether to approve/disapprove the style of the Footnotes in the 13:38 27 March edit, or the 20:38 27 March edit. sbb (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I assume that anyone who uses the above to change the reference format will also me making substantial edits to the article - because CITEVAR says "...nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike..." - this appears to rule oyt drive by edits just to change the ref format.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's a tad bit restrictive interpretation of CITEVAR. This is a featured article, so ideally changes should be made deliberately, and where necessary, deliberatively. Personally, I don't think changing "Friedman, p. 251" to "Friedman 2011, p. 251" is even a substantial change in citation style at all, but reasonable people disagree, so we're here RfC. CITEVAR is intended to restrict drive-by edits of individuals. It in no way restricts consensus when the change's scope is clearly elucidated and defined. As I said, this is a FA, so there ideally shouldn't be substantial edits.

  CITEVAR doesn't prevent consensus from making desired improvements. I can attest that trying to follow and use refs in the WP mobile app, I wish every ref used Harvnb-style shortrefs. Those are reader-focused changes, and if the consensus votes for ANY changes or edits that are otherwise in comformance with MOS, CITEVAR is not intended to block those changes. sbb (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Sbb is correct, consensus can override CITEVAR. The only utility I can see for adding the year is to disambiguate multiple sources from the same author, but since that's not the case here...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

    I'm fairly sure the point of this RfC isn't specifically to add disambiguating years to the refs; I think it's just to move all refs in the article to {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}} -style referencing, so that the inline superscript refs link to the corresponding {{cite}}s. I suppose it's possible to force those (or related) templates to not show years in the ref, but it's probably not desirable to go to great lengths with those templates and Sfnref in order to recreate exactly the existing reference text (but with links to the cites). sbb (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.