Talk:List of castles in Italy

Lack of sources

There are many questionable items on this list, redlinked castles with no sources. If sources cannot be provided (and there's nowhere to link the castle to for where it's actually mentioned), then the redlinks should be removed. --Elonka 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are they questionable simply by virtue of being red-linked - have you any reason to doubt that they exist? I've had a look through 5 or 6 at random and they all appear to exist, and all have articles on the italian wikipedia. On that basis they appear to be good redlinks. (In addition the castles are often mentioned in the places, which are linked). I don't particularly see why this list should be "challenged or likely to be challenged" (to quote WP:V), and in any case would be trivial to source if needed. To also quote WP:V: "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself."

List articles can be a problem, but the ones I've seen issues with are normally to do with people (Alumni lists, or lists of people from places for example). Of course it would be good if this was sourced, but I don't think it is problematic either. Polequant (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's trivial to provide sources, please feel free to do so. As for WP:RED, that's not what I was referring to. I didn't mean remove the links, I meant remove the entire lines with those redlinks. Per WP:V, " Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". If a castle is a blue link, meaning it links to an article that has sources affirming the castle's existence, then it can stay. But if the line is an unsourced redlink, for example "Castello Piccolomini, Balsorano", then if a source cannot be provided, the line should be removed. --Elonka 23:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well duh, I get that you wanted to remove the whole lot but you still haven't explained why it being redlinked makes it doubtful. Just because something is blue-linked doesn't mean there are necessarily any sources at the main article anyway. You have also ignored that the castles are often mentioned at the place articles as well. A huge amount of stuff is unsourced on Wikipedia but it is not removed purely on that basis unless there is reason to doubt it. I don't have a problem with this article so I have no intention of spending a few hours sourcing it to satisfy you. Polequant (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything on this list should be sourced. If it doesn't have a source, but it links to something that has a source, I could see keeping it. If it doesn't have a source, and doesn't link to anything that has a source, then it should be removed. --Elonka 04:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning on removing everything that is unsourced over the whole of wikipedia then? And please, you still haven't answered the basic question: have you any reason to think that the things in the list are not castles in Italy? Polequant (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are other unsourced articles on Wikipedia, does not mean that it's okay. And yes, I am challenging the existence and/or notability of some of these castles. Just because there's a hunk of rock somewhere that used to be a castle, and because a tourist saw it somewhere and a guide told them "This used to be a castle, really", does not mean that we should list it on Wikipedia. If, of course, there are sources affirming that it was a real castle, and there was some sort of academic research about it, then sure, the information can be included. So again: If there are entries that have neither sources, nor are linked to an actual article about the castle, it is very likely that I will remove those entries. To avoid this, all that is necessary is for someone to add a source. Or in other words, where did the information on this list come from? --Elonka 16:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Being unsourced in and of itself is not, and has never been, a reason for removal of information. If you tried removing unsourced info for the sake of it across the rest of wikipedia then you would quickly find yourself in hot water. This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but a policy one. (Indeed if I started the article you showed above and said "Castello Piiccolomini is a castle in Balsorano, Italy." without any sources, it would not be speediable and even if taken to AfD would be quickly and the nominator told off for not following WP:BEFORE as sources are easily available, even if not in the article). Glad to see you have come up with a hypothesis of why there may be doubt about any of the entries, but I don't buy it. You could equally well have said you think drunk students might be inventing castles, but that doesn't mean you have any basis to think so. I have no intention of jumping to your wishes to source this article when you show no effort to do so yourself, or seemingly have any idea whether there are any problems with it whatsoever. Do what you think you have to do, but I'm done here thanks. Polequant (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, tell a lie, I've started you off with the example you gave above, if only to get rid of the silly tag. I look forward to seeing your progress on the rest. Polequant (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I re-added the {{refimprove}} tag to the article (scratch that, I see it's already been reverted). Folks, I'm willing to help with sourcing the article, and have updated several sections. But I'm not willing to do all the work myself. A tag is an appropriate way to flag an article as needing more work. Either help with sourcing the article, or leave the tag alone, thanks. --Elonka 15:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of castles in Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415035727/http://www.basilicata.cc/paesi_taddeo/t_641/p_monum/641_04.htm to http://www.basilicata.cc/paesi_taddeo/t_641/p_monum/641_04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106072046/http://www.iccrevalcore.net/Progetto%20Crevalcore/il_castello_di_galeazza.htm to http://www.iccrevalcore.net/Progetto%20Crevalcore/il_castello_di_galeazza.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manifestazionipiemonte.it/upload/pdf/2652.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rocca Abbaziale (Subiaco).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)