Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Should we keep the Other views and solutions section which allows contrary views?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Bold close as keep the section that nobody suggested be removed. There have been no attempts to remove the section, no discussion implying it should be removed, and so no reason for an RfC to be held at this time, unless the objective is to make some kind of point. Therefore I am closing this in an effort to prevent it from distracting further attention from the existing RfC that is actually addressing an issue that requires comment from editors. If someone feels that this is inappropriate, then go ahead and re-open it and we can all watch the inevitable play out. If anyone wishes to remove 'Other views and solutions' section in the future, they should probably discuss it here on the talk page first. Scribolt (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Should we keep the Other views and solutions section to continue to allow other views or should it be deleted?
Opinions? QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Survey on Other views and solutions section
- Support keeping the Other views and solutions section to allow contrary views and to address other concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support- Have no problem with Essays expressing two or more POVs .....as we do this with guidelines etc.... Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Have you seen Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue or Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited ....both can be linked in that section.--Moxy (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I have no problem with including a separate "other views" section in the essay. Contrary views are fine as long as the original view remains the main thrust of the essay. The only concern would be if the "other views" section grew too large... and started to drown out the viewpoint of the original essay. But, if that happens we can always discuss hiveing the section off, and use it as the basis for a new essay on its own (With "see also" cross-linking). However, we are currently a long way off from worrying about that. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on Other views and solutions section
This seems like a random question. Was someone recommending that we remove that section? Why was an RfC started over this? Until there was evidence that it would be met with opposition, this could have been easily discussed in typical talk page fashion as a new section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion of interest
You may be interested in this discussion, which refers to a related essay. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation underkill. Scribolt (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)