Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Bombardment was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Citation overkill with this edit on 01:33, 23 June 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Same thing? If so, would you consider merging this article into Wikipedia:Wikipuffery? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps writers of these essays can combine efforts. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is too rare to use as justification, but in one article, to make the point that a certain view is by far the prevalent view in the field, I listed 20 or so citations consecutively. This has survived edits by various editors. Generally, however, I limit to 3 for a point; if I want to keep more, I look for what distinguishes them and make additional statements or discard the additional citations. Some would argue that even 3 are too many for some points, but sometimes I find it useful when people want to challenge content entirely, e.g., as allegedly fringe. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I know this is an essay article (not an official wp guideline) so I want to submit an alternative view here on the talk page rather than putting a rebuttal in the article itself. I have found that some overeager editors ( Bless their hearts!) are quick to "speedy delete" new articles if they do not see any references and they are not familiar with the subject. One way to ensure you don't have to go through a time consuming afd is to front-load the new article with references that establish notability. I do agree that multiple refs to the same AP article is annoying and should be disparaged, but I think that is a separate issue. In one way of looking at it, what you call "carpet bombing" is really "airdropping"... of humanitarian supplies (reliable information sources) ...that will enable future edits to be made to the new article. IMHO. Peace, MPS ( talk) 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Although one would be hard-pressed to find a contributor who admits to being paid, everyone knows that paid editors are a scourge here on WP. I've noticed that those contributors who have been strongly suspected (and frequently accused) of being paid editors all seem to have one thing in common: bombardment. Indeed, I would say that while not all articles with bombardment are paid articles, all paid articles do have bombardment. I think it should be employed as a tell-tale sign for further investigation. Jhw57 ( talk) 12:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence:
This is a very bad practice and hence bad advice to have in the essay. If multiple cites all come from the same source, they should all be cited to the same source and the link(s) in the reference should all go to the same place. Our recognised ways of protecting against deadlinks are primarily to give the full citation of the source (not just a url) so that later editors have enough information to find it if it goes dead. Additional links in the same reference entry that can help protect against deadlinks are:
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Wikipedia:Bombardment was copied or moved into Wikipedia:Citation overkill with this edit on 01:33, 23 June 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Same thing? If so, would you consider merging this article into Wikipedia:Wikipuffery? / edg ☺ ☭ 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps writers of these essays can combine efforts. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is too rare to use as justification, but in one article, to make the point that a certain view is by far the prevalent view in the field, I listed 20 or so citations consecutively. This has survived edits by various editors. Generally, however, I limit to 3 for a point; if I want to keep more, I look for what distinguishes them and make additional statements or discard the additional citations. Some would argue that even 3 are too many for some points, but sometimes I find it useful when people want to challenge content entirely, e.g., as allegedly fringe. Nick Levinson ( talk) 17:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I know this is an essay article (not an official wp guideline) so I want to submit an alternative view here on the talk page rather than putting a rebuttal in the article itself. I have found that some overeager editors ( Bless their hearts!) are quick to "speedy delete" new articles if they do not see any references and they are not familiar with the subject. One way to ensure you don't have to go through a time consuming afd is to front-load the new article with references that establish notability. I do agree that multiple refs to the same AP article is annoying and should be disparaged, but I think that is a separate issue. In one way of looking at it, what you call "carpet bombing" is really "airdropping"... of humanitarian supplies (reliable information sources) ...that will enable future edits to be made to the new article. IMHO. Peace, MPS ( talk) 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Although one would be hard-pressed to find a contributor who admits to being paid, everyone knows that paid editors are a scourge here on WP. I've noticed that those contributors who have been strongly suspected (and frequently accused) of being paid editors all seem to have one thing in common: bombardment. Indeed, I would say that while not all articles with bombardment are paid articles, all paid articles do have bombardment. I think it should be employed as a tell-tale sign for further investigation. Jhw57 ( talk) 12:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this sentence:
This is a very bad practice and hence bad advice to have in the essay. If multiple cites all come from the same source, they should all be cited to the same source and the link(s) in the reference should all go to the same place. Our recognised ways of protecting against deadlinks are primarily to give the full citation of the source (not just a url) so that later editors have enough information to find it if it goes dead. Additional links in the same reference entry that can help protect against deadlinks are: