Talk:Craig Handy

Page references
This page had several paper-based references in a bulleted list which were removed for not being footnotes. References do not stop being references when they are not footnoted; Wikipedia tends to prefer footnotes, and editors are welcomed to convert them into footnotes, but removing them simply because they aren't in html tags isn't constructive. I'm particularly worried about the paper-based ones being removed, but not the AMG reference; Wikipedians seem to shun any reference they can't immediately click on, but it's still the case that not everything worth knowing is on the internet yet, even after all these years. Converting them to "proper" references would mean doing the dirty work of actually going to the library and looking them up in person.

Handy's not exactly screaming with notability, and the paper-based encyclopedia references listed in that section are important indicators that he passes WP:MUSIC. I therefore request that they not be removed again, and I see no good reason why they should be. Chubbles (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you want to get into an argument about how references work on wikipedia.  You removed a reference, then I added another reference, so the you removed 2 references, including his year of birth.   You need to understand that wikipedia is propelled by inline citations, not general references.   Chubbles, as I've said before, your edits always confuse me.   Cosprings (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not added any references; you are confusing references with footnotes. You have converted references into footnotes, making them inline citations. This is usually fine, except that you are not using them to actually verify anything substantial in the article; that Handy is a saxophonist is probably the least important thing to verify, and the references already given could be used to verify other things that are much more worthy of an inline citation. You are right that my reversion was a little blunt, and removed a little other good work (the cat of birth); I will be more surgical in fixing the article in my next edit. My understanding of references I made quite clear in the above paragraph; if you wish to make the article full of inline cites, go ahead, but it's not constructive to remove notability indicators, and other reliable sources of information that may be useful to others, in the process. Chubbles (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)