Talk:List of boating magazines

Lists

This is not an indiscriminate list or directory - it should be for existing articles or articles that can be made and requires independent sourcing per WP:LSC among others. CUPIDICAE💕 14:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion

Better to err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. Stand=alone lists. Cutting them because you think they are unimportant is a disservice to the readers. WP:Not paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works - it's not helpful to our readers because we are not a directory. We require sourcing. We do not keep lists of everything that exists and the onus is on you to provide sourcing which you have not done. I suggest you revert it since you're now edit warring. CUPIDICAE💕 14:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

And we certainly can find and add independent sourcing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Then do that before you edit war it into the article. Also per your own link which you didn't read: As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. CUPIDICAE💕 14:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you are now edit warring. Let's see what other editors think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol ok then file a 3rr report because I've reverted a total of two times within policy while you have been making up your own guidelines and policies adding unsourced nonsense to an article. CUPIDICAE💕 14:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was asked to look into this by Prax, though I find myself in agreement with her; without a reference or a bluelink, how is the reader supposed to know that these titles actually exist? I could edit the page to add any number of seemingly-plausible but fake titles to this page and no one would be the wiser (I could just say "they're super-niche!"). If there is a concern that we don't have everything, chuck a {{Incomplete list}} at the top of the list. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on you to verify this information with reliable sources. Until you have found and can include reliable sources to back up your claims, do not re-add the information in question. Remagoxer ^(talk) 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That you would say I am making this stuff up is whimsical. I would have been insulted if your comment did not prove your ignorance of the subject matter. No sin in that; but you are out of your depth.

Sources you want. Sources there will be.

Challenge accepted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Remagoxer's policy-based request is entirely reasonable, but 7&6=thirteen making it personal attacks is not. WP:CIVIL, please. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No personal attack. Just facts. You are beating that same old drum again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Your accusations of "your ignorance of the subject matter" and "you are out of your depth" are untrue. Remagoxer's request for reliable sources is completely warranted.

Also, please see WP:INDENT. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Their comments show only that they know nothing about boating magazines. That is lack of subject matter expertise. I will elucidate with sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As per CUPIDICAE, the onus is on you to provide sources before Edit Warring it into the article.

Also you don't need to be so WP:BATTLEGROUND about it.

And again, please see WP:INDENT. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)