 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Unneccisary Tags
editHonestly, do we need to cite every single fact. Cite important facts, and trivia that people want to challenge. Requiring citations for everything just causes unnecessary work. For Example, where is the citation that westmont actually exists.--208.70.19.10 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, citations are actually important. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. That article explains why citations are necessary and when to cite things. Since someone (not me) found it worth putting a "citation necessary" marker in the section, the material is challenge-worthy and therefore needs a citation. (At one point someone mentioned that the source of this information was the official Westmont website, or Chamber of Commerce website, or something. I haven't had time to check. If you do, then please just add the appropriate citation(s) -- and then you can remove the citations tag.)
- We don't need a citation that Westmont actually exists because that information is public knowledge and clearly accessible on all maps of the Chicago suburbs, as well as attested by the existence of the websites in the External Links section. If someone challenges whether Westmont exists, however, then we would actively cite the fact that Westmont exists. When the information is real and worth inclusion in an encyclopedia, it isn't hard to add a citation -- which is the reason for adding citations.
- I am replacing the citations needed tag in the History section. When citations have been introduced, then we can remove it. Elatb (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Svitak
editI've removed the Svitak entry from the Notable Persons list. It was:
- John Svitak, 2005 Citizen of the Year, 2005 Chamber’s President Award.
But as his name isn't linked to a Wikipedia entry, and neither is "Citizen of the Year" or "Chamber's President Award", I have no idea of the context of these awards or why they are "notable" or he is notable. A quick Googling didn't reveal any secondary sources related to this (the presence of additional people writing on him would indicate notability to my mind) -- I was only able to turn up An Illinois General Assembly House Resolution resolving in favor of Svitak (which, given everything else they make resolutions about -- and the content for why he is "notable" -- I'm not inclined to believe gives him "notable" status either). See WP:Notability -- I see no reason why these guidelines shouldn't apply to sections within articles as well as articles themselves. Elatb (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)