Talk:Chili pepper

Contrary to WP:CITEVAR, which states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change.", User:Kurzon has now repeatedly attempted to change this article's citation style, without seeking consensus, and in fact repeatedly ignoring my edit comments and (more surprisingly) my posts on his talk page. Plainly, consensus is the right way ahead here; the default position is that we stay with the established citation style, which is Vancouver in this case. I'm sure editors will be open to discussing a change, but that requires the proposer of the change to explain why it would be desirable, and to listen to the resulting discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We don't need to be attached to citation styles designed for the printed page. On Wikipedia we have limitless space, so let's take advantage of that. Throw out this "Vancouver" style. Kurzon (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Many thanks for discussing. However, it's neither a question of my personal attachment (I much prefer |last=Doe |first= John C. to Vancouver, but this article's established style per WP:CITEVAR, the applicable Wikipedia policy is certainly Vancouver), nor to any matter of space: breaching the rules on citation style changes is not a space question but a failure to seek (let alone obtain) consensus. You have given no reason for a change, either in your edits or here, and you're failing even to persuade those of us who *don't* favour Vancouver. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Isn't it just more pleasant to read the full name of the author as it's printed on the cover of their book? Kurzon (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Pleasantness is nice but it's a very doubtful reason to change a citation style. I think we'd need a more coherent argument than a feeling. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well you present no practical reason to use Vancouver style. You just say it's convention. But when I look at the webpages for these papers, they don't even use Vancouver style. Kurzon (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The only reason is that it is established in the article, as WP:CITEVAR says. You are free to propose a change, with supporting reasons, and other editors can then consider it and reach a consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Kurzon - courtesy ping.

I would prefer we did not use Vancouver. Both visually and technically, it is inferior to the other styles. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I suggest you put a note on the WikiProjects listed at the top of this article, mentioning your proposal and pointing to this discussion. Then interested editors can give their views towards a consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]