Talk:Simon Collins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Restoring what had been improved post 2 May 2014

I have restored the improvements made to the article that were, for an unknown reason, rereverted. This includes removing unverified content (as per BLP guidelines), removal of content not specifically pertinent to the article subject, and improved prose that had previously been too wordy, too stilted, and extraneous. All of the citation quotes attached to the sources that were recently added/re-added have been left alone, of course. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is it possible to collapse the quotations in the reference list? Walls of text in references are something I've never seen before; it seems like overkill to me, but could be remedied if they were collapsible. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotations are rather lengthy. Part of the problem seems to be the reuse of sources. If each use of a source quoted only what was necessary to support that individual citation, then it would reduce the need for walls of text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Each reference is used multiple times in the article due to different parts of each source being relevant for different sections of the article. I made sure only the sentences paraphrased from the sources are included in the citation. They aren't from one particular block of text from the sources but are rather individual sentences or strings of sentences placed in the same "|quote=" tag and separated by double quotation marks. As mentioned above, separating each sentence/string of relevant sentences from each sources with their own "|quote=" tag made them all invisible. Perhaps that would be the best method; I could get to that as soon as possible, as I know where each "|quote=" would go.

I think the greater issue is why an entire section of information with newspaper article reference was removed (see: [1]). It seems, after agreeing that the article should have been reverted to the 3:32, May 2, 2014 version, we now have the disputed version again but with the quotations from the text imported (see comparison: [2]). Vuzor (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more explicit. What I'm saying is that instead of using refnames, you could repeatedly cite the same article and only include the relevant quote for each specific citation. This would mean that instead of <ref name=source1> ... </ref>}}, you'd use two (or three or whatever) <ref> ... </ref> citations to the same source. It would increase the number of citations, but it would make each citation more readable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, NinjaRobotPirate. I see what you mean.

The page version does still appear to be an issue, though. Based on our discussion thus far, it appears both Fuhghettaboutit and myself agree the content from the 3:32, May 2, 2014 revision should be kept. There is no legitimate reason to remove that content. The RfC above might have served that purpose. Both you and TheRedPenOfDoom appear to have suggested that we revert to that version and keep all of the removed content. Do we require consensus for this or have we already reached a conclusion? What are your thoughts? Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be an issue to anyone except you. And no, that isn't what Fuhg said. He didn't agree with you that the May 2nd version should be reinstated, he wanted the content restored that had been removed because of the locked/unavailable references. He said it in his comments to me here [3] ("Does that mean you're going to revert your removals?") as well as in the premise of the RfC ("Should the cited content removed on the basis stated in the RFC title be returned to the article?"). No where in either of those places did he mention the May 2nd version of the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Edit summary from Fuhghettaboutit's revision, which you promptly reverted: (see: [4]):

Revision as of 03:28, 17 May 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs)

(Revert to version of 03:32, May 2, 2014, which AFAICT, was last b/f large scale removal of sources began on the invalid basis that sources that are unavailable online somehow means the information is "poorly sourced" or "unverifiable")

My comment in the threaded discussion links to various diffs from after 03:32, May 2, 2014 in which content was removed.Vuzor (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he said. THEN. What he said later by no means indicated he wanted that done again. I note you have started edit warring again, under the guise of fixing references. You have restored your preferred version. Ninja told you not to edit war -- you ignored that advice. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. My hope is that User:Fuhghettaboutit will step in at this point. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The original dispute does seem to be whether offline sources are reliable in a BLP. Obviously, they are. If we've moved beyond that, which it seems we have, then the new debate seems to be whether a certain bulk copy edit is helpful or not. This edit seems to remove several sources, but for different reasons than before. I'm not 100% clear on what the reason is, and it seems that others are equally confused. Exactly what problems does this edit fix? I would beware of edit warring to reinstate this edit, as there does not seem to be consensus for it. I'm not clear on what exactly the RfC is supposed to be about, either, because it seems to be addressing the previous dispute and this dispute at the same time, possibly conflating them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the citations to reflect the latest proposal, NinjaRobotPirate. Unfortunately, this appears to bloat the reference section as well. If, in the future, the article is expanded with further newspaper citations, we could have a fairly enormous reference section. Vuzor (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Most articles don't require each citation to contain a quotation. Is it necessary to have them here? It makes editing the article much more difficult, and it serves to further verify what should already be considered entirely verifiable, reliable sources by default. The quotations have been provided as a courtesy, per Darouet's suggestion above. Vuzor (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever necessary. Some people appreciate it, though. Are any of the newspapers on Google News Archive? That would solve the problem of not having access. By the way, the IMDB and About.com generally aren't reliable sources. Normally, I'd remove them on sight, but this seems like an exception. I'd rather not inflame tensions. At this point, I think it's best that we discuss any removal of sources. There's been a bit too much unilateral action already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant newspaper issues in the Google News Archive database for this article seem to stop in the late 1980s to early 1990s. My guess is that it's a business decision involving some of these databases. Most of the newspaper sources used in this article are dated between 1999 and 2005, so they unfortunately aren't available there. The Vancouver Sun archive in that database, for instance, ends on Feb 28, 1987. The About.com source is useful as it tells us where the 2008 single "Unconditional" debuted at on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart. The Billboard issue for September 6, 2008 (available on Google Books here: [5]) only lists the Top 25 that month (page 52), and the full chart for that week is locked behind Billboard's own chart subscription service at Billboard.biz. There doesn't appear to be an alternative.

The removal of sources has become a kind of common occurrence around here. I agree with your comment, NinjaRobotPirate. Also, the columns certainly help. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the about.com source seems fine in that context. Hopefully, we can find a better one to replace it. I tried checking, and I didn't see anything. You'd think there'd be better details online somewhere. I did find a better source for the IMDB citation, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As solicited above, I should make it clear I am not and never was dead set on reversion to any particular point. I chose the point I did simply because it appeared to be a good place from before the larger removal of newspaper cited content at the time when they were all out, but I did not (and have not) vetted other removals, i.e., now that the newspaper sources have been restored, I have not checked whether any other material removed should be also restored and absolutely agree we should not have poorly sourced statements in a BLP (but I hope everyone is clear when I say "poorly sourced", I'm referring to actually poorly sourced – blogs, fan forums, self-published sources, etc. and not any content cited to a source that happens to be unavailable for free online). The quotes are rather over the top, but if they function as an edit warring curb, so be it. At this point is there any content still removed that anyone feels should be returned? If I might suggest some structure, if anyone wants anything in particular returned, it might be a good idea to take each one up on a case-by-case basis: quote what content should be returned, maybe what diff it was removed in, and if not clear, what it was sourced to (with the understanding, of course, that WP:BURDEN is always at play).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, if you haven't seen it already, please read my comments in the section directly below this one re: restoration of the version Vuzor reverted in the early morning hours. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)