I'll refrain from further editing on the article for the foreseeable future, but I do want to point out that a number of citation formats are being used on the page. Standardizing is best per WP:CITEVAR, and it makes it possible for other editors to edit/add material without furthering the mess.
I saw citation templates in use on the page and started standardizing some of the references to that format. (I don't have a strong preference for them; I had not encountered them until I saw them in use in this article. I came to the article out of curiosity, and as I read, I liked the way the cite templates were offering the full cite information while the in-text citations remained concise.) I didn't realize how contentious they were, as Haploidavey pointed out on my talk page. I'm just pointing out that a consensus would help improve the page. Popoki35 (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes that you have made. I think that the sfn/harvnb tags are an improvement, since they were already present on the page, they make the references shorter, and are machine-readable. I'm not terribly convinced that they are any harder to use than any other wiki-syntax (I actually find it much easier to read a text with sfn/harvnb tags than one with ref tags) and they are now very wide-spread across the wiki. Furius (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)