Cut: Citation Needed

(Bear with me here, I'm new to this part of the forum)

So basically, I think it should be cut because it's not a trope. It's a short statement that-to me-seems to serve little purpose other than a Take That! against Wikipedia, which seems rather in poor taste.

Any thoughts?

That's the site's citation policy. I don't see why we should cut it.

It admin page, not trope page.

^^But....we don't have a citation policy. At least not to my knowledge.

I suppose that's the point, but couldn't we simply keep it as a footnote on No Such Thing As Notability?

^Oh.

Well nevermind then. It bothered me and I was told to come here before putting it on the cutlist.

edited 22nd Oct '10 8:32:31 PM by SpainSun

[Citation Needed] has turned into a gag phenomenon and has found its way across the web and into other media as well.

We may want to expand this page to reflect that.

edited 22nd Oct '10 8:34:05 PM by BlackWolfe

We do have a citation policy. It's the page you want to cut list. That's it. All of it.

We may need make page type more visible.

If it's become a meme, we at least need to expound upon it better.

Wait, why's it locked?

edited 22nd Oct '10 8:58:13 PM by Stratadrake

Presumably the same reason all the other admin pages are locked, to prevent vandalism.

If we're going to keep the page, we should at least expand it because otherwise, it looks like some lame flavourless stub. For one thing, usually we don't need sources, but people will naturally request them for exceptional claims.

And one little peeve: the image misses the point of the comic, which is in response to the aforementioned exceptional claims.

If it's gonna get cut, I suggest turning it into a There Is No Such Thing As Notability redirect.

It's not going to be cut. And it doesn't need to be expanded on. It's an Administrivia page. It's a statement of wiki policy — we don't require citations.

The thing is, it doesn't sound like one.

But remember, if we do expand on this page to stop it from being a stub. We'll have to cite anything used in such efforts. It would be egregious if we didn't...

^_^ By that, what I mean to say is. Stubs aren't bad if they get the point across. Do we really need more lines to say we don't require citation and citation is never a reason to do anything.

A stub is a page that is incomplete. Just being short doesn't make a stub, especially not in a policy page rather than an trope or works page. Citation Needed is not a stub. It is not incomplete.

But when all the article says is "we have no such policy", that's not just concise, but terse.

What more needs to be said?

Not exactly sure. About 35 more words?

...Sorry for the joke, my train of thought was refueling at the station.

• On Wikipedia, Citation Needed is an invocation of Wikipedia's "Verifiability" policy, which is derived from their insistance upon "No Original Research".
• Here, There Is No Such Thing As Notability — or, for that matter, verifiability either. But we still don't want tropers positing their own original research into trope articles — that's a Natter magnet. If some troper argues that they're citing Word of God, or even Word of Dante, somebody else should be able to find and verify that. If it can't be found, do we really know whether it's an official claim or not? Not really. If it's being disputed, and they can't reasonably defend that it's an official statement, we can cut it with a chainsaw.
• The page doesn't even mention any related articles or topics, like we've come to expect from wikis.

edited 24th Oct '10 11:18:30 AM by Stratadrake

This thread expired after 60 days of inactivity.