Talk:Aeroflot Flight 902

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
	This article is supported by the Soviet aviation task force.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-English sources and references; "Unreferenced" template

The conversation below is compiled and moved here from respective users' talk pages by me. No changes were made to the original comments, except editing paragraph indentation — so it shouldn't be modified any further. Any follow-up comments and/or arguments should be made on this page (article's talk page) below the "This discussion has been closed..." box. cherkash (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aeroflot Flight 902, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my explanation in the edit summary: since article essentially uses one source of data and this source completely supports all the facts and descriptions in the article, there was sufficient referencing done already. Hence, the article is not unreferenced: it's sufficient to have this one source listed in the References section (without cross-linking to it from any specific point in the article). So although "ref" tags may be missing, it doesn't mean the article is unreferenced or insufficiently referenced. Which leaves me confused about your revert. I think you should take a better look. cherkash (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists of just two unreferenced paragraphs written in English. It's unclear how a single external source that it's written in Russian can support them. By means of WP:NONENG regarding the use of foreign language sources, I invite you to translate into English the proper information in order to support these paragraphs in a suitable fashion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs are not unreferenced: that's exactly why I changed the article the way I did (i.e. explicitly putting the citation into a References section). And yes, in this case a single source supports the whole article. Though English language sources are preferred, per WP:NONENG it's perfectly ok to use sources in other languages. Also, per WP:NONENG, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation." Since I'm fluent in both languages, I can assure you that the whole article truthfully represents the source cited. So the source is verifiable. Thus, technically, there was no reason for your revert. I'll assume it was just a misunderstanding, and I hope we've cleared it here. As a side note, I'm not aware of an equivalent English source for the same information, otherwise I would happily include it. If you know one, please add it as an extra reference. cherkash (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aeroflot Flight 902, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jetstreamer, you clearly haven't been reading your own talk page, specifically this section, so I'm posting on both our talk pages in hope that you'll read at least one. I gave you very clear reasons why you are talking nonsense per Wiki policies, and I gave you a 3 days courtesy period to respond and continue discussion before I've re-established my changes. All you do is continue bullying tactics instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion. I'm going to move this conversation to the article's talk page for future record, and I'm warning you that it's your behavior that is actually considered disruptive in this case. So stop it! cherkash (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add any further comments on the subject matter below this comment. cherkash (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at WT:AIRLINE for opinions regarding the issue to be placed here. Absent in the above discussion is a recall to WP:IC, already made in my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IC provides guidance on how to use inline citations, rather than prescribing that inline citations should always be used – which is what you have been persistently implying. You don't seem to understand the distinction between an inline citation and a generic reference/citation, of which an inline citation is nothing more than a particular case. References/citations are by no means limited to inline citations only, check out WP:REF and, more specifically, WP:GENREF which explains that general references for an article as a whole are acceptable even in the absence of inline citations. If you think about it for a second, it should make perfect sense, especially in cases like the article in question – which is exactly what I tried to explain to you before. WP:GENREF says as much. cherkash (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I apologise for my silly behaviour and, specially, for not taking into account WP:GENREF, which says it all. Nevertheless, don't you think that the page would get much improved if inline citations are provided? Again, I can barely translate the two sources provided in Russian, but it would be helpful to add at least the translation of their titles. Please let me know what you think, this time regarding this point. Separately, what do you think if I withdraw the request for opinions at WT:AIRLINE?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we all make mistakes. I've changed the article again, and provided the Russian translation of the titles and names. I agree, you can definitely withdraw your request at WT:AIRLINE, it's probably not very relevant there anyway. As for inline citations, it's better to provide them if/when the article gets expanded – but keeping in mind the scarcity of original information about the event, I doubt there will be much new material to add. cherkash (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I already withdrew the request for comments at WT:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]