Talk:Chris Martin

Who's Who
I restored the reference that twice removed and  has restored. It would be better to discuss it here than to continue to go back and forth. I restored it because I agree with Duncan.Hull's edit summary of "Reinstating Who's Who (UK), because it is a more reliable source of biographical information than capitalfm.com (etc), see WP:RS and multiple sources are preferable to a single one WP:3REFS". GustavoCza, why do you want to remove it? John (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I already mentioned in the summary. Keep clogging up this article with a bunch of unnecessary repeated references though, I'm sure it's great for readability. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense to me. A reader just sees one extra superscript character, and has one other means of verifying the material. Readability for editors isn't a primary purpose here, but verifiability is. Does that make sense? John (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to verify the source either so there is that. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @GustavoCza unfortunately not all Reliable sources are available to all users, but this is not a valid reason for excluding them.
 * Wikipedia editors can gain access to Who's Who (UK) and many other useful resources that are not openly accessible through the Wikipedia Library. If you don't already have access valuable resources like these, its worth getting access, see WP:LIBRARY
 * And thanks @John for starting this discussion on the talk page (where it should belong), rather than in the edit comments. Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If only select few people can see the source then it's not good enough. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliablility and acessibility are not the same thing. There are lots of reliable sources that are not accessible to everyone, this is the problem that WP:LIBRARY is trying to solve by making WP:Reliable sources available to a wider audience. Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again: if the source lacks accessibility it's not good enough, reliable or not. Such references should be a last case scenario. Chris is the band member that gets the most attention, if Capital (one of the biggest radio stations in the United Kingdom) is not enough for you, I'm sure there are other places to search. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats why multiple citations are a good idea rather than relying on a single source. In this case you have one more reliable one (ukwhoswho.com) and one more accessible one (capitalfm) Duncan.Hull (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wanna know a better idea? A source that is both. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that's the point, neither source is both the most reliable and the most accessible.
 * Which is why multiple sources are often better for WP:Verifiability than a single source. Both sources have their strengths and weaknesses, as we've discussed above. Capitalfm.com is a contemporary hit radio station, not a publisher of reference works and biographies like Oxford University Press is.
 * Reference work is more reliable but sometimes only accessible using The Wikipedia Library.
 * That's why I'm arguing to include both sources, see for example Multiple sources. Can you explain why you think having multiple sources for a given fact is a bad idea? It supports, rather than detracts from, the goal of Verifiability
 * I'm not arguing to remove capitalfm.com, just arguing to reinforce it to improve the article. Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think a source is accessible but not reliable you have to replace it with one that is both accessible and reliable, not cluttering up the text. That guideline is not doing anything other than excusing laziness. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have to replace anything, we can just add another citation. Unless someone can direct me to it, I can't find a Wikipedia guideline that says you must always prefer using a single citation.
 * So “cluttering up the text” is a weak argument because we're talking about the difference between these two kinds of things:
 * Joe Bloggs was born on the 9th December 1983 in Bla-bla-town [1]
 * Joe Bloggs was born on the 9th December 1983 in Bla-bla-town [1,2]
 * As John pointed out above, the reader sees one extra number. I still can't understand how one extra number could be described that as “clutter”. It doesn't even come close to Citation overkill - but is a small improvement to an article that we are both trying to make better while supporting Verifiability.
 * As for laziness, it is lazier to have just one citation.
 * I still can't understand why having two citations, rather than one, is an objectionable idea Duncan.Hull (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the Early Life section alone there are sentences with three to five references, so I don't like the idea of further adding to the mess. I have managed to promote pages here on Wikipedia to Good or Featured status without using multiple references for a single statement, so the guideline you are talking about is obviously not to be followed religiously either. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about five citations in a row, that is probably Citation overkill.
 * I'm talking about two citations in a row.
 * Please reduce the clutter elsewhere if you think it improves the article, but two citations isn't clutter. eg.
 * Chris Martin was born on 2 March 1977 in Exeter, Devon. [1,2]
 * Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I too have worked on Good and Featured articles and I can assure you that having two or three references is usually better than having one. For example, your one source may be excellent but may not be readily accessible to all readers; it may be behind a paywall, it could be a paper book which is not freely available in digital form. Or a website can just go down, for short or long term. There is also the question of balance; relying overmuch on one source can lead to a slanted view of something, where a spread of sources from very different points of view would give a more balanced view. But that's getting way beyond what we are talking about here. For simple matters of fact, two or three will do no harm. More might be overkill. Thank you both, by the way, for engaging so passionately, thoughtfully and knowledgably about the process of editing. It brings joy to my wizened old heart. But essentially I agree with on this occasion. John (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)