Talk:Kamendol
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Use of offline sources
[edit]The Serbian wiki page uses the book Насеља to verify one sentence; "In 1846, the village had 29 houses , and according to the 1921 census , there were 162 houses in the village with 1,166 inhabitants . (data at the end of 1921 )." This does not match the text we are using to verify with the source in our article, which is concerning. Without actually having looked at the book, we need to be careful to how we use it. This is the problem with moving offline materials from one page to another, and assuming they contain content which they may or may not contain. Plus, we'd have to go back through the editing history to see how it was used when first added, because text can be altered. I'm not a big fan of using materials I personally haven't viewed because this is how errors creep in, and even issues of citogenesis can happen without meaning to. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- So maybe it would have been better to put it at the end of the first sentence (
Kamendol is a suburban settlement of Belgrade, the capital of Serbia.
– unless Kamendol is not a settlement in Serbia, any source talking about it naturally would verify it is a settlement in Serbia) than the second (being around Grocka). My issue is that if there IS sourcing available for the article, and the subject is clearly notable, it should not be redirected in the first place. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- I am not redirecting for a notability failure, but because of a verifiability failure. I understand we have a difference of opinion over redirects. I have a greater concern with WP:Verifiability compliance than you do. Redirecting pages without sources is permissible under policy, and editors do this routinely. I don't mind you coming back and restoring articles with references. I appreciate that when it is done responsibly. It's not responsible to add offline sources you haven't read, and make claims that the sources verify our text when you haven't read them. That's just basic common sense, and frankly if you continue to do that it could get you into serious trouble. Thank you for finding an online source you can view. I suggest removing the Насеља source altogether unless you replicate the translated text it is verifying (ie just that one sentence) from Serbian wiki page. You really can't assume it says more than that given how it is used on the page, and that neither of us have access to it. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)