User talk:67.101.41.32
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello. Re Titanic, every section, ideally paragraph, should have at least one reference. Really, it's much better to reinstate the refs you've removed... The JPStalk to me 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The IMDb is not always considered a reliable source. The BBC (or similar news service) has much greater cultural capital. The JPStalk to me 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, what is the purpose of the citing the same information again and again? all the things you cited from BBC can also be found on imdb. what is the difference? unless you know any new info then you can cite them seperately. It makes the whole reference list unecesarrily long and the whole section cluttered with numbers.
- I have already explained. References are our friend. They should be in every section; ideally in every paragraph. The IMDb is not always considered in high regard by editors. If we are striving for FA status then IMDb wil cause it to fail. Please do not remove them again. Removing references could be construed as vandalism. References are not 'clutter'. Look at today's featured article. The JPStalk to me 08:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, The INFORMATION that I took from IMDB is THE SAME information you are presenting on your citation. It is NOT about wheter IMDB are realiable or not, It is about why we need to cite THE SAME information AGAIN and AGAIN? Is that how you cite things? isn't enough for one citation? As we are only citing RAW facts??? Why is this so hard to understand? What is the difference when a reader look up at your BBC reference and imdb reference? They see THE SAME EXACT thing. UNLESS you are bringinup new information then cite it. And do not bring up Imdb credebilty as 99.9% of all the articles about films here uses that website. Again, this another problem with editors here as I am dealing with their egos rather thier rationals. Common among "account holders" vs. "anonymous users". Can not you see I am trying to help but since you are "user" you think you know better. I am not going to change this thing again, this so small that it is not worth my time.
- You are removing reliable references whilst keeping unreliable ones there. That is not helping. It is a fact that IMDb is looked down upon during peer review. It is good news that you are not going to change it again. Another editor, according to the edit history, was confused over your removal. The JPStalk to me 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not want to be disrespectful or anything, I know you are a good person but, Is it me? or its really you who can not get the point? It is NOT about IMBD. Its about you presenting REDUNDANT references which are already ESTABLISHED. We are presenting very SIMPLE facts, which can be EASILY acess. I really do not think it is necesassry to cite it again and again and again.... AND we are just talking about the INFORMATION : "awards and nomination facts" nothing more not the Imdb not BBC BUT the SIMPLE facts of Titanic's awards and nomination which IS beautifully SUMMERIZED in ONE reference. If Imdb is so UNREALIABLE why its information we are citing is the SAME THING that is found in your BBC????? Why??? Because they are just preseting simple raw facts. Thats it. No wonder Wikipedia is look down upon as unrealiable by professors at my school. because of people like you. I really think the reason why you keep insisting your argument is because nothing more but your ego. have a good day.
- JPS, the anon editor is absolutely right about this one. There's no point in repeating the same general reference over and over. It doesn't make the fact statements more true and just clutters up the prose. References are our friends, but that's not the same thing as excessive citation.
- Peter Isotalo 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
