Wikipedia talk:Try to verify

It seems that some of this content is covered at Citing sources, which also talks about a 1000 other related topics in a kind of mishmash of style guides, policy, and guidelines... --The Cunctator 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for labelling as guideline
The Cunctator, you asked me to explain why I changed {guideline} to {proposed}. Basically I think we shouldn't put these labels on pages *too* lightly, and there should at least be a discussion on this talk page before that goes ahead. The guideline template says that most people agree with it - I'm not sure that many people are even aware of it! :) It also looks like a work in progress, rather than a finished guideline.

I actually strongly support this effort - hopefully in a week or so we will have some more effort and will have a proper guideline with support behind it, rather than just a suggestion prematurely labelled "guideline". Stevage 13:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

problems with division
Personally I am opposed to dividing the page. Given that wikipedia is not paper, length in and of itself is not a problem. But this explains only why I see no need to divide it; I have other reasons for being opposed to dividing it. I believe that the detail provided on different ways to comply with the policy are essential to a sound understanding of the policy. It is easier for someone to go to the policy and read the first few paragraphs and then decide they get the point, than for someone to go to the policy and then have to follow various links to other articles because they still aren't clear. By the way, I suspect that some of the Cunctators concerns with the policy - specifically Jguk's version - have to do with cuts Jguk made. I urge the Cunctator to look at the pre-Jguk-cuts-version and see if that version preempted his concerns. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)