Talk:Santa Clara Campaign Treaty Site

Deblogification
Thank you for reviewing the article on the Santa Clara Campaign Treaty Site. I noticed that you relocated the plaque's inscription to the caption of the image featuring the plaque. Additionally, you deleted the source reference, and your explanation was that it's not necessary since anyone can view the photo and read the inscription. This formatting choice is new to me, and it has made the caption quite lengthy. I would like to know if this is a common practice based on your experience? Greg Henderson (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There's also the issue of using NoeHill.com, which is a blog. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417. I suppose we could just omit the caption entirely, but citing NoeHill doesn't look appropriate., any comment on this? Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. In this case, I actually prefer the plaque text as a block quote within the body of the article, rather than as a long photo caption. It reads more seamlessly that way.
 * I also had a look at the NoeHill.com website, which is indeed a blog, and therefore does not have the type of editorial oversight needed as a reliable source for the encyclopedia. It should not be used. Netherzone (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you said you "actually prefer the plaque text as a block quote within the body of the article, rather than as a long photo caption." If that is the case, can you put the plaque text back? Greg Henderson (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to do it, but let's see if there is consensus first. Perhaps Melcous or another editor will participate. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about the layout. The use of NoeHill.com is objectionable. A photo also can't be used as a source, but a pure mechanical transcription of what it says should be fine without a source. In this case, leaving it unsourced is probably better than citing some random's blog. Graywalls (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. There are two sources for the plaque text have already been cited in the article here and here. The NoeHill.com citation has been removed. Including the plaque transcription can indeed assist readers in understanding the content of the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the WP:SPS that appears to fail WP:RS criteria. It looks to be a personal website of Beatrice and Denis Delja, according to the site's "contact" link, so, I've removed https://www.californiahistoricallandmarks.com/landmarks/chl-260 Please feel free to send it to RSN or ask others if you believe this source meets reliable source criteria.  Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)