User talk:Djsasso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This talk page is automatically archived by Cluebot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
  • Archive index - Index of all archive entries.
  • Archive #1 - Entries archived from January 2005 through December 2007.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from January 2008 through May 2008.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from June 2008 through December 2008.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from January 2009 through October 2009.
  • Archive #5 - Entries archived from November 2009 through August 2010.
  • Archive #6 - Entries archived from September 2010 through April 2011.
  • Archive #7 - Entries archived from May 2011 through December 2011.
  • Archive #8 - Entries archived from January 2012 through March 2013.
  • Archive #9 - Entries archived from April 2013 through January 2015.
  • Archive #10 - Entries archived from February 2015 through October 2017.
  • Archive #11 - Entries archived from November 2017 through 30 days ago.

Please be more careful[edit]

Hi Djsasso! Just wanted to let you know that this edit [1] removed the reference template at the talk of the page, I assume because there was no justification for removing the template and because it wasn’t mentioned in the dit summary that this was an accident. Please be more careful next time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It was removed because there was more than enough references on the page to justify not being tagged. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thats not how that tag works... If there is still a single unreferenced line on the page it can’t be removed. Much of that page is unreferenced so there very clearly are not enough references. For example the entire Logos and uniforms section is unsourced. When undertaken knowingly and not accidentally this behavior is disruptive, please let this be the last time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That is actually how that tag works, any tag may be removed if the person removing it feels like the issue is solved. Just like anyone is free to tag it if they feel there is an issue. Tags are not badges of shame to remain there until some perfect article exists. Also not every line is required to have a source, only things likely to be challenged. I suggest you do some more reading on policy before you accuse someone who has been editing here for almost two decades of editing disruptively. Overtagging, as you did earlier in the edit history of that page is also considered disruptive editing, and I would suggest you cease doing so. Disagreements on if there are enough sources is fine, accusing someone of being disruptive when there is a difference of opinion however, is not. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why do you feel like the issue is resolved? Also *I’ve* challenged the text, so technically it *needs* a source (its not just likely to be challenged, it has been challenged). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The comment about challenging the text was in regards to your comment about every single line needs a reference. That simply isn't true. If you are expecting that every line in an article will have a reference then I have news for you, almost every article on the wiki even FAs would need the tag. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Would you agree then that every line of text needs a source if its been challenged? Remember you removed a tag from challenged material not unchallenged material. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would agree that you believe it needs a tag, I didn't believe that the referencing was so poor that one was warranted so I removed it because borderline necessary tags hurt the article more than they help because people are often scared to remove them even when sources have been added by them or others, so they very rarely go away once added to a page which makes the pages look worse than they actually are. If it was a specific citation needed tag for a specific line I likely would not have removed it as it would have been clear there was a controversial line that was being challenged. But a whole page one on a page that was mostly decently referenced except for that section you mention, no I didn't think it rose to the need of having a tag on it which it my opinion was a bigger issue than the a section that didn't have references, especially one that didn't have anything that was likely to have controversial sentences in it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"If it was a specific citation needed tag for a specific line” you just characterized that as overtagging and reprimanded me for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No I mean the Template:Citation needed on a specific sentence which is a small inline tag not a big box. What I commented on as over tagging was putting 5 large general tags on the page that all essentially said the same thing when one would have done. In fact its why another editor removed them and put the single one in the first place, as the tagging you did caused a notice to go up at the hockey wikiproject that you were going around over tagging. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thats interesting, I don’t remember being tagged in any such discussion. I’m confused now, because you don’t agree that one would have done it... You removed it when it was condensed to one after all. If I had tagged each sentence with a [citation needed] I would have been hauled to ANI for supposed tag bombing... Aren’t we supposed to use section tags when so many individual Cn tags would be annoying? I believe the figure generally mentioned is no more than two or three individual Cn tags before upgrading to a section tag. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The difference is one is saying "This is bad" without giving specifics so looking at it, I didn't see an issue and said "This is ok." A citation needed template would have said hey this specific sentence needs a cite and I would have said, oh ok and either found one or left the tag. But yes, if you think the only other option was to tag every single sentence with the citation needed tag that would have been overkill as well because as mentioned before, not every sentence needs a reference. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Consider this a teaching moment, if you were me how would you have tagged the page? Assume that you yourself are the one challenging the material and as such it *needs* a citation per WP:VERIFY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If there was a sentence that I didn't believe to be true or believed others wouldn't think it true then I would put the {{citation needed}} on it. If there were a couple as you say 3 or 4 then I would have done the same thing with them. If I believed the sentences likely to be true and believed others would think the same I wouldn't have tagged them as I wouldn't have believed them likely to be challenged, as such wouldn't require a source. If there were a large number of issues, I would probably start a talk page discussion on it in addition to tagging with the more general tag and point some of them out so people coming along later can see the actual specific issues I had with the article. Drive by tagging doesn't really help articles if people don't know the specific issues you see. Just a general "This is bad" or "This needs more" isn't constructive so it makes it hard for people to act on it, it can come across as tagging for the sake of tagging even if meant in the best of intentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I’m still here so its clearly not drive by tagging, for more complicated tags I do that but for self explanatory tags like for instance cn and unsourced section theres no requirement or even an expectation to open a talk page discussion. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain how your editing process works, I guess I’m just naturally a more “challenging” thinker (that may be interpreted as a self-burn if it gets a chuckle). I have to push back a little on the idea that the general tags aren’t constructive, if that was the case then they wouldn’t exist. You can argue it isn’t as constructive as another path, but I’m not really seeing anything to support the idea that it isn't constructive at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I should be clear, I do not in any way think you were doing anything in bad faith. We just were looking at the page differently, which is why I didn't revert you when you reverted me. Because in the end of the day we were both just trying to do what we thought was best. Whether or not the tags should exist is a whole can of worms that I won't get into. It is a perennial debate on whether they should exist or not, there seems to be three schools of thought, one that they should, one that they shouldn't and one that they should be put on the talk pages not the main article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the clarification, I’m not wild about how we use tags but I’m going to stick with policy and guideline for now as it seems that the perennial debate has for now been decisively won by one of those sides. Just to be clear when I reverted you I thought I was reverting a mistake as there was no mention of that change in the edit summary but all of the others were described, if your edit summary had described that part of the edit I would have opened a talk page discussion there instead of the partial revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also full disclosure I fall into the camp of “we should be using a shitload more editorial marks, we’re called editors not writers” but I also think that our editorial marks should be smaller and more discrete, more along the lines of cn than the section or page tags and that most editorial marks shouldn’t be visible unless you want them to be (I don’t think they serve much purpose for casual non-editor browsers). In general I don’t like the top of page “something non-specific is rotten in Denmark" notices. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Yeah you pretty much sum up my feelings on it. They should be more discrete like the cn template. And like you they should be hidden unless specifically turned on or they should be on talk pages out of immediate view. They serve a purpose but I feel like they often make relatively decent articles look like garbage for a sometimes very minor issue which only serves to discredit what Wikipedia is doing, as most readers (as opposed to people who actively edit) are unlikely to care about what most tags say in terms of fixing the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

On the other hand a lack of tags can make a page with deep and serious issues appear to be endorsed by the community and accurate. That to me carries greater repetitional risk than a decent article which is overtagged. The amount of times I’ve had a non-editor friend say “look what it says on wikipedia!” and had it be both completely wrong, entirely unsourced, and completely untagged is non-trivial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah I don't necessarily think a box would actually help with that, but it may, there are definitely good arguments on both sides. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Empty categories[edit]

Hello, Djsasso,

Just a reminder that empty categories are tagged CSD C1 and sit for a week in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and, according to instructions, will be eligible for deletion after that tag has remained in place for seven days. It is not uncommon for categories to be temporarily empty and need to be removed from this category before the 7 days have passed. There is really no point in deleting categories before they are eligible for deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Liz: I thought they had sat for 7 days. Apparently I can't add 17 + 7. Sorry about that. -DJSasso (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ordering categories[edit]

Hi. Please do not order categories alphabetically as you did at Gunnar Galin. See MOS:CATORDER. Kind regards, (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[] What part of MOS:CATORDER is it you think prevents it considering it says "alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful". The hockey project as part of their page style alphabetizes categories in articles that fall under it. I mean it isn't something I would fight about or anything, but MOS:CATORDER does allow for it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." This was also recently discussed at WP:FOOTY: [2] Kind regards, (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]