User talk:Maxeto0910
Appearance
|
Nomination for Deletion
[edit]Disambiguation link notification for February 14
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Bull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thank you for your work at refining the United States article. Tarlby (t) (c) 23:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC) |
Australia Lead
[edit]Hello there
While I generally agree with your approach to citations in the lead, in this case the staement about when Indigenous Australians first arrived has been often challenged in recent years and I think it is best to repeat the citations here. See [[MOS:LEADCITE]]. Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I see. Perhaps we should add a comment for editors that this statement is directly sourced in the first sentence of the history section? The reference overkill in Australia's lead is quite unusual for a featured article and makes it appear messy, so I tried to reduce it a bit, as most featured and even good country articles have a sourceless lead, which looks way cleaner. The amount of citations in the lead is tolerable now, but I think the long-term goal should be a sourceless lead as well. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- If you would like to do that we can see how it goes. Most of the citations in the lead grew from old edit wars so it might be a good idea to prune them back. We occasionally get a few drive by editors who insist that Indigenous people arrived before humans left Africa but they are easily dealt with without having to clutter the lead with cites. I am also trying to prune unnecessary cites from the main part of the article. There are sometimes four cites for a fact which no one would think of challenging. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I guess we can afford to regularly supervise a featured country article like Australia sufficiently to solve such edits wrongly challenging a correct claim. Of course, it's a matter of pragmatism, as it depends on how often such drive-by edits occur, but I don't think it will get so far out of hand that we won't be able to deal with them anymore.
As for excessive citations in the article body, I suggest replacing the clutter with "Attributed to multiple sources:[insert refs. here]". Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)- Talk page stalker - Help:Citation merging#Usage Moxy🍁 23:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I guess we can afford to regularly supervise a featured country article like Australia sufficiently to solve such edits wrongly challenging a correct claim. Of course, it's a matter of pragmatism, as it depends on how often such drive-by edits occur, but I don't think it will get so far out of hand that we won't be able to deal with them anymore.
- If you would like to do that we can see how it goes. Most of the citations in the lead grew from old edit wars so it might be a good idea to prune them back. We occasionally get a few drive by editors who insist that Indigenous people arrived before humans left Africa but they are easily dealt with without having to clutter the lead with cites. I am also trying to prune unnecessary cites from the main part of the article. There are sometimes four cites for a fact which no one would think of challenging. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)