Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill/Archive 3

Should we keep the Other views and solutions section which allows contrary views?
Should we keep the Other views and solutions section to continue to allow other views or should it be deleted?

Opinions? QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey on Other views and solutions section

 * Support keeping the Other views and solutions section to allow contrary views and to address other concerns. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support- Have no problem with Essays expressing two or more POVs .....as we do this with guidelines etc.... Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Have you seen You do need to cite that the sky is blue or Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited ....both can be linked in that section.--Moxy (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I have no problem with including a separate "other views" section in the essay. Contrary views are fine as long as the original view remains the main thrust of the essay.  The only concern would be if the "other views" section grew too large... and started to drown out the viewpoint of the original essay. But, if that happens we can always discuss hiveing the section off, and use it as the basis for a new essay on its own (With "see also" cross-linking).  However, we are currently a long way off from worrying about that. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Other views and solutions section
This seems like a random question. Was someone recommending that we remove that section? Why was an RfC started over this? Until there was evidence that it would be met with opposition, this could have been easily discussed in typical talk page fashion as a new section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
You may be interested in this discussion, which refers to a related essay. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation underkill. Scribolt (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)