Talk:Waddell "A" Truss Bridge (Parkville, Missouri)

discussion opened after two placements of negative tag in the article not supported at Talk
User:Onel5969, i politely enough asked in edit summary that you explain yourself at Talk page. Instead you reverted my removal of the unjustified negative tag on the article. Your own edit summary did convey some info, but it would be plainly decent of you to respond as requested and explain yourself here. Edit summaries are not a good way to communicate positively and increase understanding; they are rather a way to offend.

Anyhow, the "Examples" section has non-controversial statements supported fully, i believe, by the two articles linked. And as summaries of linked articles having extensive footnoting, it is not necessary to include all the referencing over. Sure if some controversial statement is made, then it could be reasonable to want specific inline referencing. But this is rather like how the lede of an article does not require footnotes when it summarizes footnoted material below. This is like how many, perhaps even most, list-articles work: each row can provide summary information from the linked articles. I do not believe that copying inline references over from linked articles would improve anything, and in fact it would detract from most readers' experience. Can you please explain your view if it differs. --Doncram (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , and I felt the brief statement in the edit summary covered it without belaboring the point. As I said there, the example section was a simple list, I would agree with your assessment, but since it isn't, it needs referencing as per WP:VERIFY. While you and I do not always see eye to eye, I always appreciate your contributions to the project.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)