Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 3

message: Why is this in both the official policy and guidelines categories, and have the guidelines header?  Surely it's either one, or the other?  This is at least confusing, if not out-and-out contradictory.  Alai 06:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see that it is in both, Alai. Or perhaps it's already been dealt with. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  The truly remarkable thing is that the edit to redirect the policy template was only just reverted...  You'd think someone might have noticed we were apparently without (at least explicitly-labelled) policies for over two days...  Much better now.  Alai 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy, guideline...  both? 

message: This is not the time to start trying to force editors to use footnotes. The Siegenthaler incident has highlighted Wikipedia's poor use of sources, and there's more interest than ever now in encouraging editors to provide sources for their edits, or at least for any that are even slightly contentious. What we have to concentrate on is persuading editors to provide any sources at all, rather than fussing about the precise form they have to come in, and especially not one as complicated as SEWilco's.
:Yes. There is a pattern of the policies and discussions about sources being totally out of sync with the reality of how people source. I don't have facts or figures, but my observation is: People don't source. However, WP:Cite sources says "For the reasons listed above, if you add any information to an article, you must cite the source of your information." (emphasis in original). It's silly to have a rule respected by so few. Stevage 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia already accepts embedded links as a minimal source, just as a book title alone is accepted.  It is expected that citations will be improved, just as it is expected that everything else in an article will be improved.  (SEWilco 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to agree that edit warring over format and requiring a certain format when there is no consensus is silly. But I would also have to say that going and changing a bare external link into a footnote with added title and author information is an obvious improvement. And SlimVirgin, if you don't wan't edit wars, why are you going around on articles with no controversy and removing that extra information that SEWilco's bot has added? I refuse to get dragged into this case/conflict and I would prefer we instead just separate out the issues and make common sense decisions. More information in citations is to be encouraged, though not required. Enough said. I don't agree with a lot of SEWilco's edits, but I am able to separate the person from the edits. When they make sense, we should support them. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxman, I'm not removing information. I'm restoring embedded links that he removes. If he wants to add citation information to the References section, that'd be most welcome and he'll never find me removing it. But that's not what he wants. He wants Wikipedia to outlaw embedded links, and he's been editing warring on policy pages and guidelines for months, misrepresenting what one says on another, adding misleading information then edit warring to keep it in. WP:CITE says pages shouldn't be changed from one style to the other without consensus, and I'm asking that he stick to that. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now is not the time

message: :The poll has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Citation Poll. 
/originally by SlimVirgin (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should wait until discussion is over before moving stuff.  The fact it is "taking up the whole page" is not a clue to you, participant SlimVirgin, that it is an active discussion?  (SEWilco 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was you who put it up. As you've asked so many questions, it's more appropriate on a subpage. All that matters is that people who want to take part know where to find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format poll 

message: I'm going to try to add something about the importance of using good sources when it comes to biographical material about living people, following the Siegenthaler incident. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographical material

message: Lets say I created an article on Zeliard, a video game from 1990. Under common WP conventions, video games that were developed, published and sold, usually are considered notalbe enough for an article.
During the description of the game, I say, "the top boss in the game is called Jashiin".
Now, this statement is:
A. True.
B. Verifiable. Anyone who owns and had played the game can verify the truth of the statement.
However, no notable newspaper has ever published an article about Zeliard, so there is NO WAY to get "solid references".
So we have a notable article, with a true and verifiable statement, which, however, was never referenced.
About 90% of the article's length (pretty much anything except the infobox containing data that probably can be verified somewhere, such as corporate press-releases), covers in-game plot, theme, and characters, which were never described in press.
Does that mean the article on Zeliard should be thrown out alltogether?
This question is critically important to the Verifiability policy. Its not just about Zeliard, its pretty much about ANY article statement which is true and verifiable, but is not documented in press.Elvarg 21:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not everything can be verifyalbe from "reputable sources"