Talk:Ricardo Hurtado

WP:SUBCAT
WP:SUBCAT does not explain why the word actor, which is already masculine, needs male added to it to make the category redundant. Female actress would be just as silly. Abel (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the actor categories CATGENDER applies. Looking at Category:21st-century American male actors as one example that applies here; there was a suggestion to delete and subsequent discussion about that. The decision was to retain.
 * Given that the category exists, it seems appropriate to use.
 * Icarusgeek (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On WP:CITEBUNDLE
The guideline WP:CITEBUNDLE opens with: "Sometimes the article is more readable if multiple citations are bundled into a single footnote." The key word there is "sometimes". The issue here is that this is a WP:BLP. A number of the sources used at this article are interviews. The reason why "bundling" sources together in a BLP is potentially a bad idea is that a single source, esp. an interview source, may be able to reference multiple facts within the same article (e.g. WP:REFNAME). Now, I haven't had a chance to go through the sources used in this article in any detail yet (and I may never get to that), but splitting up each source into its own reference makes it potentially easier to flesh out a BLP with additional info from the various individual sources using WP:REFNAME.

The other issue here is that the kind of references used at this article (and how they're inevitably formatted) doesn't really lend itself to CITEBUNDLE'ing – in fact, the way the refs were bundled at this article before made it actually more difficult to figure out what was referencing what, and exactly how many references were being used at this article. (CITEBUNDLING would seem to be something that would be better used if the references tended to be "book"-type references, with just page number differences, and such.)

Ultimately, as WP:CITEBUNDLE is explicitly an optional reference format choice, I believe there must be some quantifiable benefit to bundling, over not bundling, references. And in the case of this specific article, I don't feel there is any net "benefit" to bundling. (In fact, in general, I would say that CITEBUNDLING is not a benefit at BLP-type articles, and should probably be avoided. CITEBUNDLING seems to be something that might lend itself more to scientific and historical topics...) In any case, I feel that CITEBUNDLE'ing is not a net benefit at this specific article, and that each of the sources should remain as standalone references. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)