User:Untitled740/1

Football Clubs that need more citations
I appreciate the work you're doing highlighting passages in the pages of various football clubs that need more citations. However, please consider two things:

1. Today, you made 41 edits to AC Milan adding cn tags and making some minor copy edits. This clogs up watchlists and makes it really difficult to keep track of changes. Please try to reduce the number of edits, especially if you're doing the same thing over and over. 2. WP:TAGBOMB and WP:OVERTAG; it's not necessary to add a cn tag every sentence, especially if the article already displays the maintenance template that it needs additional citations. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Consider also improving the article yourself by finding some of the references needed. It's not much use placing tags everywhere and leaving them for others to fix. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. My reply to the points above:

1. On 1, I apologize. I thought it was a good idea to make the edits in a careful way. That this would be easier for people to understand. But it has the opposite effect. I apologize. It is possible I can edit it separately and then place all the changes in one (or a small number of) edits. I thought about this but expected it would cause other problems. So I will do that instead, for a AC Milan-type-size article. I will try to treat such a large article/club with more care. I aploogize for the watchlist clog. I did not know this was possible. I thought only the last/most recent edit was on the watchlist? 2. On 2, actually the article was not displaying any maintenance templates. That was the problem and why I wanted to look closely at it. WP:TAGBOMB is an essay about "not explaining the reason" - I have put multiple (and careful) reasons using the "reason=" part asking for clarification. "Consider applying only the most specific, helpful tags" - that is just what I am trying to do. Maybe I did it wrong somewhere I do not know. But not intended. I have even removed some tags I added because I thought they were too much when I noticed other problems instead. WP:OVERTAG is another essay. Most of the same. The example included of this revision with 6 enormous tags at the top is what I do not do. I do not even use some of those tags. I put the inline tags (they are smaller and - I thought anyway - not so distracting) so that editors, readers, whoever, know there are problems. Some people go from one website to the other reading the news and then Wikipedia and then the news again. They read everything and take it as truth. Unfortunately. If it leads them to stop for a moment and question what they read - and maybe even fix some of it - then everyone wins. The editors, the readers, the subject of the article, the Wikipedia. --Untitled740 20:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Untitled740, what Sgubaldo told you is absolutely correct. You're overtagging. Please use the inline templates more sparingly. Thank you. Jfire (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I will try to use the maintenance templates more sparingly. --Untitled740 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was looking at your editing on AC Milan. For the table Kit suppliers and shirt sponsors instead of cn tagging each cell, because there are no cites in the table, it would have been better to place a template above it. Cn tags in cells are best used when other cells have citations, sometimes tables can have a citation for the whole table. So you do have a choice how to address these issues.


 * Overuse of the tags can effect the readers enjoyment of an article, at times when something is highly contentious it's good to use. But a statement of fact doesn't need to be always sourced when it appears to be an obvious statement. You need to remember the flow of an article when processing it to add citation requirements. Kind regards. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Good advice. Some cells in other tables had cns. Looks like Milan one does not. I will review that now. --Untitled740 15:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are doing good work highlighting issues that may be quite difficult to spot in various, so do keep it up while using the inline tags sparingly as well and perhaps directly fixing some of the issues yourself as well. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As you have been told already: WP:TAGBOMB and WP:OVERTAG; it's not necessary to add a cn tag after every sentence, especially if the article already displays the maintenance template that it needs additional citations. If it doesn’t have a maintenance template, maybe you could just add one instead of filling the articles with hundreds of tags. Consider also improving the article yourself by finding some of the references needed. It's not much use placing tags everywhere and leaving them for others to fix. Syvä-äksy (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any bad understanding of what to do. I do not think I have added a cn tag after every sentence? I have left many, many sentences without. I do not think there are hundreds of sentences in 1 article (most of the time) to add hundreds of cn tags at the end.


 * But when it is written that a chairman is charged with a crime or a manager is sacked – they are real people with real lives and families? When it does not have a source, it can have a cn. At least. In WP:V it is written: 'Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced'. Is it a bad understanding? I have not done this because… well, a simple cn is too much for many people already? But this says it is policy. Is it outdated?


 * There are some contradictions – many different numbers for the same stadium capacity is a regular occurrence. Do I ignore that? Or do I bring notice to it so that someone can work it out – if they want to? The big maintenance template does not include little problems like that. They are problems that are hard to notice. It is written above: 'You are doing good work highlighting issues that may be quite difficult to spot'. That is what I was trying to do.


 * Most articles do not have a maintenance template. If there is confusion in the writing, if there is a problem, where do I mention this? Asking for help beside the problem is to show others what the problem is. I have fixed many problems along the way. But I cannot fix them all. Not so soon anyway. To say 'it's not much use placing tags everywhere and leaving them for others to fix'? I am not telling others to fix them. I want to try to fix them too.


 * 1 thing this week was a featured article that was outdated. It is now much improved because of the work I did checking the citations and with the help of another editor. I did not remove anything because I did not want to annoy anyone. Another editor removed all that I discovered was unverified and it now has many more citations for recent years. I think that is useful anyway. --Untitled740 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You added 31 citations needed and a few others to FSV Zwickau, which is clear Tag bombing. If you don't understand that, stop adding tags until you've learned how to do it correctly. Nobody  ( talk ) 18:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Just looking for ways to verify it and to improve Wikipedia. That article had nearly no citations. And more than a few other problems. I was not counting them. But I am not adding any more. I guess I will find something else to do. --Untitled740 19:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)