Talk:Apgar Fire Lookout

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cite

Apologies for the edit summary, but that is the perception when someone asking for a citation and source is disregarded as a drive-by tag, whatever that is supposed to mean. I read the article, noted that Wikipedia claims this fire lookout is "significant" (which is a highly objective term) and asked for a source that stated it was significant with the convenient templates that Wikipedia provides for that purpose, but it was ignored, and dismissed as "Rv drive-by tag" by an Acroterion.

I'm not sure why one would dismiss this request for a source, clearly whether or not something is "significant" is a matter of opinion, and it should be sourced, at least if this website is serious about its policies. I didn't mean it as a slight, sheesh. I can see why no one trusts this site and why new participation is falling off. If this is how you treat all newcomers trying to help, it's a wonder this site still exists at all.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that listing on the National Register of Historic Places inherently confers notability. Given that, no citation is needed to back that up. The listing on the NRHP is documented twice. This is a very minor NRHP property, of that there is no doubt. My apologies for characterizing the tag in that manner, but drive-by tagging is a problem: it's essential that you describe what you'd like to see, and "drive-by" is the common expression for apparently inappropriate cite tags. Acroterion _(talk) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite}} tags are more appropriate for statements that really need to be backed up, like "Richard Nixon's claimed Australian ancestry". Acroterion _(talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]