Talk:Mississippi Heat

Reversion

The edits made today had enough major issues that I'm afraid I wasn't able to do any surgery on them. First, it's generally discouraged to link every noun in the text; while this might be useful for some applications (I actually kind of like the idea), standard practice is to link only things that are highly relevant to the text - bands, musician names, albums, songs, specific locations, and the like. So words like "song" or "guitar" probably don't need to be linked, and they definitely don't need to be linked more than once in the body of the prose. The guideline for this is WP:OVERLINK.

Also, it's not usually considered a good idea to use in-line external links scattered through the body of the prose or in the discographies. Wikipedia entries do not use this in-line style, which you may have seen often on other websites. If the purpose is to point to information about the entity in question (artist/organization/album/etc.), you can use an internal link to its Wikipedia page, but if it does not have one, it's considered promotional to offer a host of links to personal websites or download/purchase sites. If they're not serving as references substantiating some fact or assertion made in the text, they don't really have a legitimate purpose according to Wikipedia's external links rules. Chubbles (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think the proper thing to do in this case is to reduce the number of links as you see fit and get rid of links you deem promotional. I would prefer that to merely throwing our hands up and saying surgery isn't possible. The internet is a great resource, and in this case I want to make sure fans get as much accurate information as possible. I didn't mean to promote the material, but in many cases Amazon links are the only ones available for albums, and I do want to give fans a chance to check out whatever music they may be interested in learning about Jeffhba

[edit conflict] One other note - Jeff, you suggested that I make a series of changes to your edits rather than doing a blanket revert, which I did once before because there was a lot of new content that was probably worth saving. This last set of edits made a lot of changes, only a few of which probably make sense to keep, and the work to change them is labor-intensive. Furthermore, I'd like to suggest that you should try and curate your own edits when possible; it's as if you brought a bunch of files in to donate to an archive, and then dumped them on the floor and expected the staff (of unpaid volunteers) to clean them up for you. You should think of yourself as the one with ultimate responsibility to make sure the edits are of sufficient quality for the site. Chubbles (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so maybe think about starting out with an edit that's just a change to questionable content, and fix formatting and linking later. What are the spots you want to correct using reliable sources? Chubbles (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles, so I've made some minor edits to very problematic parts of the Wikipedia. The problem with your approach, however, is that I have cited a lot of what was in the previous edit, so to take out all of it doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhba (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, the edits made so far are pretty much fine; I'd keep in mind that YouTube links are not normally kept on pages, though, because the site has widespread copyright infringement issues and rarely qualifies as a reliable source for what remains. I'm not sure what citations you are referring to that have been removed (keep in mind that a reference or citation is different than a footnote, though Wiki editors sometimes confuse them). Chubbles (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)