Jump to content

Talk:1938 Austrian Anschluss referendum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austrian Anschluss referendum, 1938. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Changes being discussed (the earlier ones are below):
   
0prev19:33, June 25, 2020Number 57No we don't. This is the standard method for listing the source in election and referendum articles
1prev19:31, June 25, 2020Alexander DavronovUndid revision 964467203 by Number 57 talk We have to stick to template-based sourcing. No need to plain-text links.
2prev17:31, June 25, 2020Number 57Restore usual format
3prev17:28, June 25, 2020Alexander DavronovPlace sources on Results in right places. Sad that there is only one source.

@Number 57: Hi! Guidelines explicitly recommend to avoid embedded sources. I also strongly encourge to read WP:REFDD which says that footnotes are preferred. I actually had a hard time of finding who were behind statistical data. Embedded sources clearly degrade quality. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 01:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The guideline you reference is about inline citations (for prose). What we are discussing is not an inline citation, but rather a link in the table, so the guideline is not relevant. As I've been trying to point out in my edit summaries, the use of direct links to the source in election/referendum-related tables is standard practice, and is not only done for results tables, but also opinion polling tables (as you can see here, here or here). Cheers, Number 57 11:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[...] but rather a link in the table [...] Are you saying that it's not an embedded labeled link to a source? (as per WP:ECITE)
[...] so the guideline is not relevant [...] The link I've replaced by reference clearly fall under referencing guidelines. What is that if not a sourcelink?
[...] (as you can see here, here or here). [...] But that's clearly invalid way to justify anything in case of established guidelines. It's inferior practice IMO to overburden articles by repeating links when single source may be referenced via <ref name="" />. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the first point, and the first part of the third, it's not an inline citation, so the guideline cited is not relevant. I also can't see how this is repetition; if either method is repetitive, it's using citations as this means the link effectively appears in two places in the article. I can't see how this is inferior practice (having a direct link rather than a citation is arguably better for readers, who can click through to the source directly rather than having to click the reference caption and then the link), and it's obviously not a widely held viewpoint, otherwise this wouldn't be standard practice. I've been editing election/referendum articles for 14 years and I'm sure this practice would have been changed if it was regarded a problem. Number 57 22:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Please, can you use {{tq}} template to specify which my point you argue against? It's very hard to understand a wall of text.
[...] so the guideline cited is not relevant [...] I'll repeat my question. Are you saying that labeled link «Direct Democracy» that follows the word «Source:» is not a source link and therefore you state that it does NOT fall under WP:CS guideline?
[...] having a direct link rather than a citation is arguably better for readers [...] Did you fail to read WP:CS#Avoid_embedded_links?: «Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot»
[...] otherwise this wouldn't be standard practice [...] Are you talking about a guideline or consensus often met?
[...] I'm sure this practice would have been changed if it was regarded a problem [...] It's obvious problem and is old way of citing sources which is deprecated: WP:CS:EMBED. IMO it's disadvantegeous to toss sources in wrong places as per said above reasons. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many times I need to say the same thing: This source is not an inline citation because it is in a cell in a table, not in the middle of a section of text. Therefore the guidance "Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation" (emphasis added) is not relevant here. You have failed to state why this form of referencing is actually a problem (other than believing it goes against a guideline that you have misunderstood).
To be honest, I'm beginning to think you're trolling or sealioning here – as well as ignoring the answers already given, the claim that my response is a "wall of text" is patently nonsense. Please stop wasting my time with this. Number 57 16:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: I have asked for a third opinion and hope one will come short. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. For whoever gives the third opinion, I hope this set of recent referendum articles is sufficient proof of the standard format for noting sources in results tables.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] If you go through the categories, you'll see the vast, vast majority are formatted in this way. Cheers, Number 57 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources in Infobox

[edit]
Disputed changes
0prev15:26, July 3, 2020Number 57a there's nothing there that says things can't be removed for valid reasons which I've given and b it's an essay, not a guideline. What is a guideline is WP:INFOBOXREF, which states references are "generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated and cited elsewhere".
1prev15:21, July 3, 2020Alexander DavronovUndid revision 965781528 by Number 57 talk As per WP:BABY. Do not remove source links.
2prev11:23, July 3, 2020Number 57This is unhelpful as "According to ..." makes it sound like there are contested alternatives
3prev10:42, July 3, 2020Alexander DavronovYou may not touch this while reverting as per WP:BABY


@Number 57: [...] valid reasons which I've given and b it's an essay, not a guideline [...] Correct. However you may fall under related policies like WP:DE if continue to persist to remove ref-links.
[...] can't be removed for valid reasons which I've given [...] The personal preferences are not valid reasons so we have to come to consensus and I call you to return my version back.
[...] WP:INFOBOXREF [...] Should I place {{citation needed}} first as per WP:MINREF? I don't see the source immediately in the infobox. Digging up for hundreds of sources in the article's body is obviously hard task as information I've attributed the ref-link to is not very much obvious.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Firstly, as WP:INFOBOXREF states, you need not reference something that is already sourced in the article (which the results are). Secondly, the way you are adding it (i.e. "According to Direct Democracy") is suggestive that there is some dispute over the numbers and that this is one version of the results. This is both unnecessary and potentially misleading. Number 57 16:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I agree with Number 57. It is not necessary to include a reference in the infobox for a fact which is sourced in the article text, and the phrasing "According to..." does indeed give the impression that the assertion is in dispute, which so far as I can tell it is not. I believe that both the reference and statement should remain omitted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New sorce

[edit]

New source- https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/austrian-attempts-unite-germany-founding-republic-referendums-tyrol-and-salzburg-1921 2A00:23C7:91AB:BC01:7048:8725:2D45:8931 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding this source! When adding sources, please remember to add appropriate information about it, such as publish date, title and author/editor, otherwise it is considered a bare URL. Scotty2083 (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include infobox?

[edit]

Should we include the voting results infobox in an explicitly sham referendum? The purpose of the infobox is to show the results of elections and referendums, but not the drawn numbers of the Nazi dictatorship. Therefore, I consider this infobox to be an unimportant and unnecessary part of the article that should be removed unless there is an argument against deletion. There is no need for an infobox here. PLATEL (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sham referendum is correct. However, we do include infoboxes for even unfair and sham referendums and elections, with examples including 1955 State of Vietnam referendum and the 1936 German parliamentary election and referendum. Brat Forelli🦊 11:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think it's right, and will be pushing for the elimination of these infoboxes from these articles. But we're talking about this article now. PLATEL (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you want to be actually pushing for this. Ok, I admire your determination on this. I do not have an objection to you, I do see your point in why we should not be legitimizing sham results in any way. Brat Forelli🦊 13:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the logic here, but on the other hand, where do we draw a line for a sham election? Pretty much all elections in some countries are shams (countries like Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea) or at least highly uncompetitive (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan).
Perhaps it would be better to change the "Results" sub-heading in the infobox (just above the results section) to "Official published results (disputed)" rather than remove it entirely? Number 57 16:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see results. I only see numbers drawn by the Nazi military occupation. Therefore, I would not include a table, but would just indicate that the Nazis claimed these results. PLATEL (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they are still the officially published results. Huge numbers of elections and referendums are rigged – where do you draw the line on when to include an infobox/results table or not? What about the last presidential elections in Azerbaijan for example? Number 57 17:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a consensus that this referendum is a sham. But I don’t see the same consensus about the Azerbaijani elections. PLATEL (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to be honest i dont like the Ukrainian consensus Braganza (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? What is the Ukrainian consensus? Number 57 17:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian annexation referenda Braganza (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1938_Austrian_Anschluss_referendum&oldid=1214395644"