Talk:Nagraj (film)

India: Uttar Pradesh / Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

Removal of refs[edit]

@Ravensfire: You can't remove those refs simply on the basis of "something this simplistic". They are all from trusted and verifiable sources. By doing so you also removed the privilege of any reader verifying other statements in the article which can only be verified from those sources. The standard procedure here would be that you give me the account of in-credibility of those sources and then I will check it, thankyou. You know, nothing is "this simplistic", it took me whole day to write this article. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need 5 or 6 references to support a simple fact like a trailer was released. Yes, we need to use references, but we also need to avoid using excessive references. Right now the claims are very basic and we don't need 4-5 sources saying the same thing. We need one good source, hence my consolidation of the sources. If you noticed, I kept a fair number of the sources around and did my best to make sure that all referenced statements were covered by the given sources. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

let's look at the specifics. Saying the film is a sequel has 3 references. Really? That's a simplistic claim and only needs one good source. (Note - simplistic referred to specific claims, not to the article as a whole or your efforts). Likewise, there are 6(!!!) sources for the trailer being released, all of which are used for the sequel claim. Again, just one or two good sources are needed for something basic like that. Using a couple of good sources that go in depth is far better then using 5-6 sources with the same basic information. If you'll note, when I was reducing it, most of the sources were kept, but their use was spread around a bit more. Ravensfire (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: I manually brought back some of the Hindi references because they are required for in-depth study. Still don't agree? Please don't undo there and reply here, I will consider whatever you say. I don't agree with we don't need 4-5 sources saying the same thing because I had seen at most 10+ references for single-simple statement in an article here that I read years ago. I appreciate that you had removed them in good faith but still it is un-constructive. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 19:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some articles do things wrong. It's basically spam to include that many references for a very simple statement. Multiple references are needed for controversial statements. That's it. Don't imitate poor articles, look at the best articles on Wikipedia and follow those examples. Ravensfire (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: Thanks for the advice, I appreciate your views. I just wanna save those cited Hindi news articles as they not properly indexed by many search engines. That was my only motive behind doing this. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]