Talk:Boost Drinks/Archive 1

(Untitled)
Information about the nutritions contents of the other products will be added soon Fethroesforia 22:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Boost Banner.jpg
Image:Boost Banner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

tags
Hey,, re: Special:Diff/1052548706 and "I will remove it because I checked and I could not find a source that said it was discontinued, though it is not on the website and hasn’t been available in years." The problem isn't that something isn't true, it's that we don't have a source for it. Using our own knowledge is original research, which WP avoids for anything that could possibly be not correct. You can use your own knowledge for things like "the sky is blue", which no reasonable person would argue over, but not for things like "[this product] hasn’t been available in years." There are actually two reasons. One is accuracy, but the second is noteworthiness. If no RS has covered a detail, maybe we shouldn't either. —valereee (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

removing links?
@Sahaib3005, why are you removing the links in the refs? Those are helpful to let people know what kind of source they're looking at. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:Valereee, sorry about that, I just thought the red links made the article look bad. REDNOT states that articles that are unlikely to be created should not be red linked. You can add them back, if you want. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sahaib3005, it definitely doesn't make the article look good (which is a good reason to avoid using such sources if you can find the information in other places), but we aren't trying to make it look better than it is. If it's relying heavily on sources that don't have an article, that's valuable information for both other editors and for readers. But particularly while folks are trying to assess sources for proving notability, those redlinks show people that at minimum the source doesn't have an article so may need to be checked -- is it a blog? Does it appear to have editorial oversight? Is there some sort of masthead? I regularly put the sources into references, especially when I'm assessing the article for notability. I'm not sure REDNOT applies to references. The point of REDNOT is to prevent a distracting sea of red for no good reason within the article itself. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

redlinks in refs
Hey, @Guliolopez, re this edit, I feel like redlinking sources in the references is valuable. It lets readers either connect to article or see that the source has not yet got an article, in which case maybe we make one, or we decide it doesn't need one. Either way, knowing that Scottish Grocer has no article is valuable information for readers and other editors in assessing the sources. —valereee (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. In all honesty I'm not sure I understand the goal. If the goal in red-linking those sources is to prompt someone to create the article (for something that we feel might meet WP:NWEB), then that would likely align with WP:REDYES. ("Take care when creating a red link that [..] its subject meets notability guidelines for topics (including those for [..] web content (WP:WEB)".) If the goal in red-linking those sources is the exact opposite, to highlight that no such article exists (and may never exist), as a means of suggesting that a lack of notability implies a lack of reliability, then I'm not sure how that fits with RS or REDYES. Or any related guideline. (Certainly, to my eye, some of those references seem less reliable than others. The Times compared to businessfirstonline.co.uk or whatever. But I've never seen an argument or a discussion about using red-linking as a means of identifying or indicating potentially WP:QUESTIONABLE sources....) Guliolopez (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For me it's all of the above, really. For certain industries or countries, we may be missing an article about a source that just needs someone more expert to know where to look for the proof that source is itself notable. For articles that are a sea of redlinked sources, we maybe consider whether the article subject itself is notable enough if the only place it's being discussed at length is in redlinked sources. For specific assertions within an article, if we look at the references and find that source is redlinked, we maybe investigate: do we need a better source for this assertion? Does the redlinked source appear to have editorial oversight? Does it even exist? For me it's additional information for editors and readers. —valereee (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)