| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interstate 79 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Interstate 79 was previously a U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive collaboration. For more details, see the U.S. Roads Article Improvement Drive. |
OR
edit@Floydian: please explain why you have restored WP:OR to the article without a citation as required by WP:BURDEN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please explain your WP:POINTy mass blanking of sections. There is absolutely zero original research in listing the junctions along a highway. You're ignoring that paragraph at WP:BURDEN that states:
- "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
- Floydian τ ¢ 16:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- I did consider it, then I decided not to given the lack of interest in this topic area in reliable sourcing. Tags can be removed at a whim but unsourced text which has been removed can not be restored without proper citations even by Jimbo himself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- "I did consider it, then I decided not to given my lack of interest in this topic area and reliable sourcing." Fixed it for you. Floydian τ ¢ 16:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't change the fact that its OR, in my experience in-depth OR is impossible to source and its best to write from a clean slate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- It absolutely changes "the fact", and your unwillingness to see otherwise is why you're wrong. Original research is drawing your own conclusions, not making the simple observations that you are incapable of. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the text, those are someone's own conclusions. Even simple observations can be OR, for instance if you source someone's hair color to a picture of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your idea that maps are equivalent to images is a misnomer and red herring. An image represents the time of the image, just as a map represents the time of its publication. Reading a map is equivalent to reading a history book. I can't speak to the notes included in junction lists, but the actual list is not WP:OR, WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYNTH, it is simple observation. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- What junction list? I didn't remove a junction list from this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your idea that maps are equivalent to images is a misnomer and red herring. An image represents the time of the image, just as a map represents the time of its publication. Reading a map is equivalent to reading a history book. I can't speak to the notes included in junction lists, but the actual list is not WP:OR, WP:UNDUE nor WP:SYNTH, it is simple observation. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the text, those are someone's own conclusions. Even simple observations can be OR, for instance if you source someone's hair color to a picture of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- It absolutely changes "the fact", and your unwillingness to see otherwise is why you're wrong. Original research is drawing your own conclusions, not making the simple observations that you are incapable of. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't change the fact that its OR, in my experience in-depth OR is impossible to source and its best to write from a clean slate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- "I did consider it, then I decided not to given my lack of interest in this topic area and reliable sourcing." Fixed it for you. Floydian τ ¢ 16:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also just FYI there wasn't an OR list of junctions along this highway. Perhaps you're thinking about a different article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- I did consider it, then I decided not to given the lack of interest in this topic area in reliable sourcing. Tags can be removed at a whim but unsourced text which has been removed can not be restored without proper citations even by Jimbo himself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)