Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 2 March 2009

Booyah

Re: message on my talk

What BLP? rootology (C)(T) 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

redundant sources

Just leave the redundant sources. For controversial articles it's better to be safe than sorry. If you leave only one source then you always have the risk that someone will challenge it and then you'll have to dig out the other sources anyways. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with you. See WP:EL clearly states articles are not to be repositories of links. For example, the article does not need several sources verifying the subject appeared on an episode of David Letterman.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Errr, for references you have to apply Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. WP:EL does not apply to inline citations, see the first bullet under Misplaced Pages:EL#Important_points_to_remember.

For the record, I don't remember reading on any policy or guideline any limit on how many sources you can put in a sentence. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see :Misplaced Pages:NOTLINK#LINK. The article previously had 3 or 4 references to the same "event" mentioned in the article when one would suffice. Wiki is not a vanity site to be used to see how often a subject is covered in the press. However NOTLINK should especially apply when the article is identical, but from a different newsource. News articles from the AP often get picked up in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers. Obviously they all should not be used.

I reverted you again for the following reasons. Please read WP:BRD. Take it to the article's talk now (not your talk page) and discuss your preferred changes. Obviously there are already two editors who don't agree with you. Also please read the talk page to see why exactly so many sources are used. Finally, Misplaced Pages:NOTLINK#LINK does not apply for inline citations, neither does Misplaced Pages:External links. Garion96 (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@Fasttimes68, I see that now you have gone and removed references until there was only one reference per sentence, including sentences that were heavily edit warred.

This one was correct: and have the exact same text from AP, no problem with that removal, and I'll leave it alone. Idem for the Letteman show link which appeared twice, I'll leave it in only one oops, they are two different links, one is broken because someone cut the last letter of the URL address. The official Letterman's show is obviously a good source to verify that she really appeared there. (see below)

Now, you see, there are some sentences where different facts from different sources are put together to make one sentence. Several editors argued over what sources to use and wrote the text basing themselves on them. It's obvious that you haven't checked throughly that you didn't remove accidentally a reference sourcing a challenged data(*). Those sources are not there for sthetical reasons, they are for sourcing facts that appear on the article, and editors will place as many of them as they need to write the articles and keep wrong fact from appearing in them. I'm sure that, over time, some references become redundant or unnecessary, but it's your responsability to check that you don't break anything when you remove them.

Also, about Letterman again, you removed the link to the official website ) and you left a link to a wiki that anyone with a GameSpot or tv.com membership can change . I'm removing the wiki link and leaving the Letterman show link (which doesn't mention whether Adams appeared, but at least you can verify that 10 Playmates went there, it needs more sourcing I addded a page from her website, it would still need a better source)

There is no current limit on any policy or guideline (that I know of) about how many references a fact can have. Go to the talk page of WP:V (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability) and make a proposal about limiting how many sources one sentence can have as a maximum, but don't revert again just because you think that there shouldn't be so many sources because the next time you'll go directly to the WP:3RRN 3 reverts noticeboard for reverting yet again after being explained how you are breaking the sourcing of the article with your edits. You could also go to the talk page of WP:NPOV (which has the WP:UNDUE section inside it) and say that placing too many sources gives undue weight to one fact. As Garion96 says, you have been reverted by several editors, so read WP:BRD and justify every removal on the talk page (hint: you justify and then you wait for answers and discussion until you get a consensus or until several days had passed and nobody answers in which case you apply consensus by silence WP:SILENCE, you don't justify and then inmediately remove again).

(*) for example, in the sentence describing how much the taxi driver was fined and whether his license was finally removed, you removed one of the two sources, this one, which is from the least prestigious source, but also happens to be the only one of the two sources having the exact data that appears on the article. (I moved the ABC news to the sentence just before the taxi fine, it looks like it was sourcing that sentence originally) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)