Talk:Simon Warr

WP:TOOMANYREFS
WP:TOOMANYREFS is an essay and not a policy.

This article was rejected several times when it was a draft due to concerns about (have a guess)... a lack of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Therefore, I have been, shall we say, generous with the number of references/citations. Might I suggest that if there are too many citations for certain facts, that instead of references being removed some of the uses of those references (citations) be removed instead? i.e. I see no reason at all why 21 references should be reduced to 17, particularly when some of those removed are from the UK's leading newspapers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph, when all 21 references could be retained but with some of them not cited multiple times. --kingboyk (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I did try and make a concentrated effort to only remove the citations which were only used to re-cite that the subject had died (that is, sources which were cited in the death section and nowhere else). On first pass through the article, nine citations for a one-sentence statement seemed superfluous, especially when many said citations were only used for that one sentence. I did not—knowingly, at least—remove citations that were used elsewhere in the article. Since those sources only appear in the death section, removing that reference happens to remove the source entirely by extension.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. It could be done in such a way as to not reduce the number of references, as some of the references I added to the Death section do support other facts in the article but I only used them in the Death section. It would of course involve substantial work for - imho - little benefit, and having spent all day working on this I personally would rather not do that work. Can we agree to leave the references as they are now? --kingboyk (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)
 * I have no objection to that; after all, if the additional sources can be used elsewhere in the article to add information, then they could of course be moved out of the death section anyway.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They could indeed, and if anybody feels strongly about it, they can do it :) I'm just not happy to see references from the likes of The Guardian totally disappear :) [I did kill a Daily Mail reference from the draft, btw!] So, let's leave as is now. Thank you very much indeed for the cordial and prompt responses. --kingboyk (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and likewise!--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

One other thing: You removed a nowrap from the infobox but left one behind (probably my fault as it happens, due to my good faith reversion of the references removal). Does that extant nowrap need to be removed too? Looking at the docs for the template I can't see why we'd need it. --kingboyk (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, the other one wouldn't be needed either, since as it stands, it wouldn't come close to a line break.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks again! --kingboyk (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)