![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list needs to be more tied into the major lists. It's also not clear what some of these examples reference (Doctor Who? My Little Pony? MLP, which series?). Basically, this looks like a Misc. category that hasn't gotten any attention. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 11:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Boldly recategorized the article and place all the unsourced stuff that's giving people fits into hidden text until someone feels like cleaning it up further. Montanabw (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
per WP:LISTN:
So everyone please stop removing stuff from the list. 174.92.134.248 ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: regarding WP:BURDEN there is a part which does not seem to impact you much:
Per 1, I argue that the answer to "whether material should be removed" is no, because the material is very simple and non-controversial, and the overall state of the article is unfinished, so simply using template:fact next to challenged items is the best way to improve things. "How quickly" should be months or years, you should assume good faith and that people are not making things up.
Per 2, you ignore objections. You could simply use <!-- --> to invisible the stuff you object to without removing the data. Yet instead you insist on hampering efforts to organize the data. You don't invisible it and you don't put it on the talk. You don't allow it to exist for people to collectively work on together. This is true information people are in the early steps of prettying up sources to your specifications and rather than help, you sabotage it.
Per 3, the step of tagging and waiting for source improvement appears to be rushed through when it is engaged in at all.
Per 4, do you actually have a real concern that something is not reliable? You have removed content where on the wikipedia article itself there is an image showing the show's protagonist being a winged unicorn, namely Kleo the Misfit Unicorn. This leads me to think you are looking for excuses to delete true content, and not that you think the content is untrue.
WP:LISTN reduces the burden of sourcing. Even simple proof that a winged unicorn exists is adequate. You have removed content like Sofia the First even though a screenshot from the show depicting the winged unicorn merry-go-round was provided.
Per 5, I think you do believe this is verifiable and simply don't care to help. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 13:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: it is not wiki text being linked as a source, but rather a screencap from the episode which happens to be hosted there. You can go watch the named/dated episodes to verify, just as you might a book. Why are you taking a stance that television-published works are not reliable sources but paper-published works are reliable?
We don't need secondary/tertiary stuff to interpret stuff here, primary stuff will do when it is simply for the purpose of illustrating that a horn and a pair of wings coexisted. Even when this has appeared on the cover of comic books it doesn't seem to be enough for you, even though that IS published. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: at WP:NOTRS we are told that primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations" and that "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". While we are told "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided", this doesn't apply here, because nothing is large. I'm not using a primary source for a large block of information, I'm using it to take specific facts: wings and a horn coexisting on a horse. This can't reasonably be viewed as a large block of information.
If you are very concerned, this part can apply:
IPC/IINFO are not written about list pages, LISTN takes precedence.
I would not oppose your adding these to express your desire that a provided reliable primary source be supplemented with a reliable secondary one, but it should end there. Primary sources are valid here, and I do not see how your disliking that allows you to simply remove the bullets at a whim. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: methinks we are interpreting that segment differently. "Blocks on Sources" has both plural: I see this as speaking en masse about "a large block of material based purely on a primary source". It seems like you are viewing this as a plural of "a large block of material based purely on primary sources"
I believe a bunch of tiny blocks of information are not the same as making a large block. The tiny block is conveying a basic fact, a large block would be interpreting the facts into complex ideas, something that we'd use second/tert sources for, and something which goes outside the scope of a list page.
Second/Tert sources are used to convey individual notability. Thus is not required for list pages. We could use them if we're unable to find a primary source to serve as evidence of existence, but that's a out all that's being done here. Demanding the level of source needed to do something not done in lists seems to be skipping the point of a list article, which is to consolidate not elaborate. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list needs to be more tied into the major lists. It's also not clear what some of these examples reference (Doctor Who? My Little Pony? MLP, which series?). Basically, this looks like a Misc. category that hasn't gotten any attention. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 11:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Boldly recategorized the article and place all the unsourced stuff that's giving people fits into hidden text until someone feels like cleaning it up further. Montanabw (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
per WP:LISTN:
So everyone please stop removing stuff from the list. 174.92.134.248 ( talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: regarding WP:BURDEN there is a part which does not seem to impact you much:
Per 1, I argue that the answer to "whether material should be removed" is no, because the material is very simple and non-controversial, and the overall state of the article is unfinished, so simply using template:fact next to challenged items is the best way to improve things. "How quickly" should be months or years, you should assume good faith and that people are not making things up.
Per 2, you ignore objections. You could simply use <!-- --> to invisible the stuff you object to without removing the data. Yet instead you insist on hampering efforts to organize the data. You don't invisible it and you don't put it on the talk. You don't allow it to exist for people to collectively work on together. This is true information people are in the early steps of prettying up sources to your specifications and rather than help, you sabotage it.
Per 3, the step of tagging and waiting for source improvement appears to be rushed through when it is engaged in at all.
Per 4, do you actually have a real concern that something is not reliable? You have removed content where on the wikipedia article itself there is an image showing the show's protagonist being a winged unicorn, namely Kleo the Misfit Unicorn. This leads me to think you are looking for excuses to delete true content, and not that you think the content is untrue.
WP:LISTN reduces the burden of sourcing. Even simple proof that a winged unicorn exists is adequate. You have removed content like Sofia the First even though a screenshot from the show depicting the winged unicorn merry-go-round was provided.
Per 5, I think you do believe this is verifiable and simply don't care to help. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 13:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: it is not wiki text being linked as a source, but rather a screencap from the episode which happens to be hosted there. You can go watch the named/dated episodes to verify, just as you might a book. Why are you taking a stance that television-published works are not reliable sources but paper-published works are reliable?
We don't need secondary/tertiary stuff to interpret stuff here, primary stuff will do when it is simply for the purpose of illustrating that a horn and a pair of wings coexisted. Even when this has appeared on the cover of comic books it doesn't seem to be enough for you, even though that IS published. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: at WP:NOTRS we are told that primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations" and that "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". While we are told "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided", this doesn't apply here, because nothing is large. I'm not using a primary source for a large block of information, I'm using it to take specific facts: wings and a horn coexisting on a horse. This can't reasonably be viewed as a large block of information.
If you are very concerned, this part can apply:
IPC/IINFO are not written about list pages, LISTN takes precedence.
I would not oppose your adding these to express your desire that a provided reliable primary source be supplemented with a reliable secondary one, but it should end there. Primary sources are valid here, and I do not see how your disliking that allows you to simply remove the bullets at a whim. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom: methinks we are interpreting that segment differently. "Blocks on Sources" has both plural: I see this as speaking en masse about "a large block of material based purely on a primary source". It seems like you are viewing this as a plural of "a large block of material based purely on primary sources"
I believe a bunch of tiny blocks of information are not the same as making a large block. The tiny block is conveying a basic fact, a large block would be interpreting the facts into complex ideas, something that we'd use second/tert sources for, and something which goes outside the scope of a list page.
Second/Tert sources are used to convey individual notability. Thus is not required for list pages. We could use them if we're unable to find a primary source to serve as evidence of existence, but that's a out all that's being done here. Demanding the level of source needed to do something not done in lists seems to be skipping the point of a list article, which is to consolidate not elaborate. 64.228.91.102 ( talk) 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)