Talk:Bombax buonopozense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Bombax buonopozense is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bombax buonopozense article.
Article policies
A fact from Bombax buonopozense appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 June 2007.
Wikipedia


[edit] Third opinion information

The dispute is a relatively simple one in the context of this article. Circeus has removed the "sources" template on two occasions with edit summaries that make clear he believes such a template does not have a place on this sort of stub. I have added it on two occasions, believing that the template is appropriate given the WP:V policy. I made an attempt to resolve the matter informally with Circeus, but we're deadlocked on the issue. Erechtheus 04:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've asked user:Djlayton4 (the creator), to direct some of his attention at the article ASAP. He usually creates more complete articles. I suspect he has some sources he plans to use, but I don,t know what. Circeus 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. As the article was begun barely ten hours ago, tags such as {{sources}} are premature and not particularly helpful at this stage. — Athaenara ✉ 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[ The following message was posted on my talk page: ]

"Thank you for your assistance with a third opinion on this topic. I must admit that I'm a bit frustrated by the opinion rendered and seek some guidance. Isn't WP:V official policy of this project? I'm not sure I understand what is unhelpful about noting at inception that an article isn't properly sourced. Erechtheus 11:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)"

[ I forwarded the message here after I relisted the WP:3O request. — Athaenara ✉ 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC) ]
[ Postscript: …the dispute has been resolved, so I de-listed it again. — Athaenara ✉ 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC) ]

[edit] Sources

I was photographing trees at my university's botanical garden and this one didn't have an article, so I thought I'd at least start a stub. I was going to do more on it, but I don't have all of my time to dedicate to Wikipedia (sadly). Honestly I don't have much information on it myself, and I don't think I can use the specimen tag as a source. I've found a few sources with common names and range, but internet sources seem to be lacking. I'll see if I can dig up something though. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Who needs online sources? If you know of any books or journals, they are welcome as reference material. But, ideally, you do need to reference the sources of your material at the time of adding that material. If you need to do so retrospectively, you can say so in the summary. That is why it is a good practice to start articles offline or on your drafts sub-page (make one if you don't already have one) so that you can take your time over your work. Adrian M. H. 17:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what your getting at when you say, "Who needs online sources?". They are a valuable resource and if they're obviously spurious then I don't use them. Many are scholarly books, journals or essays in online format (both my sources for this article, for example). Anyways, I don't think anyone suffered terribly with 12 hours and no sources. Ideally, Wikipedia doesn't conform to as many rules as you would seem to like, but thanks for the draft page suggestion. I'll do that in the future to avoid such situations. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In reference to your comment that "internet sources seem to be lacking", I wanted to encourage you to diversify in your research, since you seemed to be under the impression that online sources were preferred, perhaps even essential (for fact-checking by other editors). In fact, they rank second to printed sources. Adrian M. H. 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Djlayton, like me,probably didn't have access to a good library at the time he wrote this. When a quick'n dirty referencing is needed, Google is a boon, but will quite often fail. THis is a case of this. A few extra possible sources (I hadn't thought of adding "journal" to my googling): [1], [2], [3], [4]. Circeus 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)