User talk:Rochelimit

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Your removal of a source from March 14 was reverted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Toddst1:Does that mean every single line, every single content, every single birth, death and holiday in the DOY section should be referenced? It feels a bit redundant, isn't it? especially if the same exact ref is available in the linked main article (1982 bombing of the African National Congress headquarters in London)? And also because almost all of the content in DOY is only referenced in the linked main article. What do you think @Mufka:?
• Anyway (a little out of topic) a long time ago, I proposed this guideline for the H&O section encouraged by a fellow member. I am not very familiar with "regulations" in Wikipedia as it keep changing. What is your opinion?--Rochelimit (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason the rule was put in place was because a significant portion of the stuff listed in these DOY pages doesn't have any sources to back them up in the linked main article. People assumed that the exact ref would be there (as you did) and let tons of crap pile up in these articles. There are a few users who have been diligently culling this garbage out one at a time, but it's a long process. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1:Actually I did not assume, before I removed the ref, I checked the main article. The first ref of the main article 1982 bombing of the African National Congress headquarters in London (linked to the word "bomb") is referenced to "the Guardian". It is exactly the same ref as the one used in the DOY, also "the Guardian". That's why I decided to remove it, seeing this as already referenced in the main article. What do you think?--Rochelimit (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If we ref everything in the DOY even if it already has ref in the main article, the reflist section of the DOY will blow up considerably; which I think why the DOY doesn't need a ref especially if the content already has a ref in the linked article. I think it's common sense.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you think? should we remove the ref from the DOY, specifically for the 1987 bombing?--Rochelimit (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation Todd—Rochelimit (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've mostly given up on the project. Once the bot stopped patrolling, I lost interest (if there's a new one, I haven't noticed). The lack of participation has always been a problem and now it's been pushed to a new extreme of inconsistency that equates to a smoking turd. In line references for every item is insane and will never be enforceable - its just a bad idea. If it's not enforceable, what's the point? The idea of a nice, clean (albeit long), reasonably curated list is gone and the project has succumbed to the pressure of compliance for the sake of compliance. The project was once grounded in WP:BRAR for good reason - it worked. I've found over the 11 years since I became involved with the project, most of the harsh critics and proponents of change slip in for a couple of months and then disappear. Once in a while they will clamor for a WP:RFC and then there is a smattering of input from people with no real interest in the project, and it goes nowhere or creates an uninformed consensus leading to a mandate that is unmanageable. Anyway, that's what I think. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)