Talk:Rosalie Iemhoff
Latest comment: 10 months ago by David Eppstein in topic When should references without inline citation be removed?
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
When should references without inline citation be removed?
editI had split the references from the notes. And added the reference
- Iemhoff, Rosalie (11 June 2019). "Intuitionism in the Philosophy of Mathematics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
which was not a reference for anything in the article.
In those cases an article can be tagged as follows
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (january 2024) |
This tag is currently transluded in 53237 articles.
Here the choice was to not tag the article, but to remove the added reference.
My question is: when should one tag the article, and when should one weed the references without inline citation?
I intended to start a section ==Selected works==, to be stuffed by me or by others in the course of time. Comparable to
I will give it another shot. If it will be reverted, I will concede.
Marc Schroeder (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Publications by Iemhoff are not references. They are not about Iemhoff, and do not support the claims in the content of the article. A small number of them could be listed in a "selected publications" section instead. The banner you list is for articles that have unsupported claims, not for articles where people are trying to list references but have not found anything to footnote with the reference they are trying to list. The selected publication list you added instead is a much better choice, but was far far far far far too long. It doesn't look selected at all. Try listing at most five publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)