Talk:Pseudechis

General references
User:Peteruetz, in reply to your note on my talk page, I agree that inline citations are greatly to be perfered over general references. However, I did not introduce these general references, and I don't have access to the book by Swan.

The two general references were introduced in the by User:Tnarg 12345. Moving these sources to a "Further reading" section would effectively remove them as references. Another editor could later remove them from "Further reading" if a URL became dead or they were judged to be otherwise unsuitable.

In my view, it would only be acceptable to remove these references (or to move them to Further reading) if we can establish that all the claims in the article are adequately sourced without them.

Since reverting your edit I have updated the citation of the Australian Faunal Directory source with a new URL. This source confirms that Pseudechis snakes are found in every Australian state except Tasmania. We could add an inline citation of this fact to this source, but I would still argue against its removal as a general reference as other facts may have been obtained from this source.

However, the mixture of inline and general references does look untidy. One way around this is to add multiple inline citations so that the two 'general references' sources are effectively declared as sources for the entire article. This is straightforward in this case, we simply need to add citations of them at the end of both of the main paragraphs. This would also ensure that any new paragraphs would not inherit the general citations. I will make a BOLD edit do do this, but would be happy to discuss it here. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks better now, although I would have preferred to add a General References section at the bottom. If the original citer doesn't step up or if someone doesn't look up those books, we may not be able to solve it. In any case, having a whole bunch of references at the end of a paragraph is an awkward solution. Thanks for you effort to fix this though. Peteruetz (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * okay, have changed to this to get rid of the tag as the studies clearly identify at least one undescribed form. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)