On 6/28/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/07, C.J. Croy <cjcroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network
Have you ever seen a greater quantity of "citation needed",
"neutrality disputed", and other such tags and templates in one
article?
Yes. Your article wins if we judge solely on the controversies section,
but
this article<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=p…
wins
if we judge based on tag density in the overall
article.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crazy_8%2527s&direction=p…
I
don't know why people do this. I suppose it's an improvement over
deleting the info with a vague edit summary such as "Per BLP".
OH MY GAWD. {{dubious}}? {{cn}}?? {{an}}??
Agggggh. Just edit the freaking articles, already. If people want to get
into flamewars, do it on the talk page.
_______________________________________________
Another example I encountered today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Igor_Stravinsky&curid=38172&a…
Was this overtagging? I think so, the article has plenty of sources, just
not everything is cited. Plus the information tagged with {{fact}} does not
seem controversial or possibly false.
Garion96