Talk:Dianna Agron/Archives/2023/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Sources section & Too Big
This section is ridiculous. Having every mention of Agron ever adds no value and is fancruft bloat. it should be massively trimmed and stuff added back where there's reall value - tis section is mean for WP:GENREF in an article with few sources - this is a well sourced and has 92k readable prose! Humok (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Those sections aren't WP:GENREF. This article uses short form references, see Help:Shortened footnotes. Without these cites the article has no referencing, the short forms on their own are not valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt an article about a celebrity needs 300+ references, but that's not a problem solved by removing the Sources section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please learn how Harvrefs work before removing all an article's sources. Kingsif (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It looks to me like Harvrefs are being used as much as anything else to sneak in a load of crap sourcing to blogs and twitter - they certainly don't make the article easier to use. Humok (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Organising sources not easier? Nice joke. Especially since, you know, it actually makes it clearer which sources are from social media - the opposite of "sneaking". You need a better attitude and at least bare minimum sourcing knowledge if you plan to stick around. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- It looks to me like Harvrefs are being used as much as anything else to sneak in a load of crap sourcing to blogs and twitter - they certainly don't make the article easier to use. Humok (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)