Talk:Bill Flores/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Quote parameter used for other than support

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

The quote parameter in a cite template is not for coatracking other information into the cite. Everything that makes up the cite should support the article text it is appended to.

InaMaka introduced this unusual tactic on October 24 and was reverted by Arbor832466. InaMaka restored on the 25th and was reverted by ArglebargleIV. On the same day, InaMaka restored again and was reverted by Arbor832466, which was soon reverted by InaMaka to make three reversions in 24 hours. I deleted the unneeded and out-of-context quote parameter text two days later and was reverted by InaMaka. I am removing that text once again and starting this talk page dialog, something that should have been started on the 25th by InaMaka after the first reversion.

It appears the consensus is that the quote parameter should not be used for source text unrelated to the article text, that the cite should only be a cite for that text. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I probably should have brought my concerns here. I've certainly relayed them to InaMaka on other articles where she has done the same thing, as well as in numerous edit summaries here. But just to reiterate: Using the quote field to sneak unencyclopedic, promotional material into an article is NOT appropriate. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not find other occurrences of this, in other articles, but my search was very brief. If this happens again anywhere, let me know and we can bump it up a notch, starting a request for comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like InaMaka restored the problematic quote fields again. Arbor832466 (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored reliably sourced, notable information that is presented in NPOV manner. There are not "problematic quote fields". The information is factual. The information is notable. The information is reliably sourced. The information isn't even controversial. There has not been a real reason given for there exclusion.--InaMaka (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If it belongs, then it belongs in the article. If it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in the article (as in this case) slipping it in through the back door by putting it in the quote field is clearly inappropriate. Arbor832466 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You just made up a whole bunch of rules that do not exist in Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with the information. The information does not violate any rules. What we have here is the you don't want the information in the article. It is merely your personal preference. But just because you don't like the information does not mean that the information is "problematic" or whatever you stated. The information is (1) notable, (2) factual, (3) verifiable, (4) reliably sourced, (5) does not violate BLP and (6) presented in a NPOV. No where have you provided a substantive basis for your opinion that the information is "problematic" other than to imply that you personally don't like the information. That is not a problem that meets Wikipedia criteria.--InaMaka (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus on this issue, InaMaka. This is not the world of Anton LaVey where everything not strictly prohibited is accepted; you are working with other people here, and their opinions count. Everyone but you appears to hold the opinion that the quote parameter in the cite template is for further support of the cited text, not a virtual shoehorn to introduce more text to the reference section. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In my comments I was responding to the only substantive complaint against the information that I could read. You stated above that I was creating a "coatrack" which is not true. The quotes are direct quotes from the source. Your argument now is essentially, "you are violating concensus" which means that you counted and there are more of you than there is of me and since you outnumber me then I must remove the notable, reliably sourced, neutrally presented info just because you outnumber me. That is not even a point. Please provide a substantive reason for their removal. Why do the "quote" sections exist if you and Arbor do not believe that they can be used? As a matter of fact the "quote" parameters serve an important purpose. They assist editors in the future to find the article again if the link is later broken and they provide a more in depth information than what is covered in the article. As a matter of fact all of the quotes could go in the article, but they are less disruptive from a grammatical point of view in the quote parameter.--InaMaka (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please join the conversation at Template_talk:Citation#Quote_parameter_used_for_irrelevant_text. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the text again, for all the reasons listed here. The text is not relevant to the cite, but all cite quotes must be relevant. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out many times. There is no concensus for your removal of notable, reliably sourced, relevant info presented in NPOV. Also, I reviewed the noted discussion above and there is nothing there to justify your removal of the information also. The burden is on you when deleting notable, reliably sourced, relevant info which is presented in NPOV. So far you have not met that burden.--InaMaka (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit of an edit war going on about this, personally I think the text in the cite should go and support User:Binksternets comments. I will be glad when all this is over after the elections.Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Flores. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Flores. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)