Talk:Not a Trampoline
Add topicLatest comment: 6 months ago by Scope creep in topic Social media refs
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Social media refs
[edit]@Popturtle: I reviewed the article and removed those social media refs. Your allowed 1 type of social media in the article not three and to build a large part of the article as supposedy "self-source" is unacceptable. Self-sources is for simple information, not on core contentson the band life. So you are overusing it and have definition of the rule completely wrong I think. Don't revert it. If you do, I'm going to take you to the edit noticeboard. You cant have junk in a mainspace article. scope_creepTalk 00:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- I do not know where the figure of "only one social media source" is pulled from (as well as you contradicting it by reducing the article's count to zero), as the policy I cited in my edit (WP:SELFSOURCE) does not state a limit besides ensuring the article is not primarily based on such sources. Of its original 1,051 word prose, 0.02% was sourced by the Reddit Q&A and 0.03% was sourced by the YouTube music video, which are negligible amounts, each covering one sentence of simple information. 11.7% of the article was sourced by the extensively depthful Instagram livestream, though this is still less than an eighth of the article and would not be the primary citation basis. Furthermore, if you do not wish for there to be misunderstandings, please cite policies within Wikipedia to prevent having bold edits that are then reverted and then discussed like this. Popturtle (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Popturtle: Its been policy for a very long while, more than a decade. Ask at the help desk and somebody will point you to it. I had the same argument with the several people in the last week or two since I started on the WP:NPP sprint with the same arguments from the editor. Self-source is only for the most simple information like birthday, dates, marriages. Its not a route to build a complete article on and not for complex context that needs WP:SECONDARY sourcing. I removed them all because I din't know which ones were the most important to you. I would have assumed you would select one and put it back it, which is perfectly reasonable but not to fill it with primary sourcing. I learned this week that band articles are BLP's and i'm assuming associated discography information are considered part of that policy. I've reviewed about 220 band articles in the past two weeks and you almost never see multiple social media sources. It is quite rare, so leave it out and find better sourcing. I hope that explains where I'm coming from. scope_creepTalk 09:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- I did not initially select any sources due to your "don't revert it" warning, though I have now returned the Instagram source as it seems to be mutually accepted. Thank you for the evaluation, I will refrain from that type of primary source usage in future edits. Popturtle (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Popturtle: I'm sorry if sounded like a giant arse. You do so many of the reviews you get blunter more and more as time goes on. You have to remind yourself now and again that its real people with real emotions that your talking to, although that is certainly not an excuse. Take care. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- I did not initially select any sources due to your "don't revert it" warning, though I have now returned the Instagram source as it seems to be mutually accepted. Thank you for the evaluation, I will refrain from that type of primary source usage in future edits. Popturtle (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Popturtle: Its been policy for a very long while, more than a decade. Ask at the help desk and somebody will point you to it. I had the same argument with the several people in the last week or two since I started on the WP:NPP sprint with the same arguments from the editor. Self-source is only for the most simple information like birthday, dates, marriages. Its not a route to build a complete article on and not for complex context that needs WP:SECONDARY sourcing. I removed them all because I din't know which ones were the most important to you. I would have assumed you would select one and put it back it, which is perfectly reasonable but not to fill it with primary sourcing. I learned this week that band articles are BLP's and i'm assuming associated discography information are considered part of that policy. I've reviewed about 220 band articles in the past two weeks and you almost never see multiple social media sources. It is quite rare, so leave it out and find better sourcing. I hope that explains where I'm coming from. scope_creepTalk 09:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)