Talk:Hudson's Bay Company/Archives/2017
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hudson's Bay Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516083404/http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=428721 to http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=428721
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311201749/http://www.hbc.com/storelocator/?langid=en&src=hbc to http://www.hbc.com/storelocator/?langid=en&src=hbc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
this article needs more references
There are lot of paragraphs throughout the article that do not even have a single citation. —howcheng {chat} 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Moxy (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article is extensively referenced and does not warrant a ref improve tag. As MarnetteD said in edit summary, use a CN on any claims that still need sourcing. Meters (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, the sources sufficiently support the text as given. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fine. [1]. It's not a matter of counting references. It's the fact that there are long swaths of text without any citations whatsoever. I get why you don't want the unsightly orange banner across the top, but when you need this many CN tags in an article, that's kind of the point of the tag in the first place. —howcheng {chat} 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's an almost 100 kb article. A tag at the top of the article does nothing to tell us where you think the references are needed. Tagging the 19 paragraphs you are concerned with is far more effective at actually getting sources for anything lacking, if that's your goal. Tagging articles your way the day before an article might appear in the "On this day" section of the main page does prevent such an appearance, as has been pointed out on your talk page more than once. Meters (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Of course I'm aware of that because that is in fact what I'm doing: vetting articles in preparation for OTD. I prefer the tags because it makes my job a lot easier. For example, on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 2, where HBC is included, there are 25 articles that I need to go through to make sure they're free of issues. Then I go through the articles listed on May 2 to see if there any candidates there that could be included. So I'm looking at ~50 articles a day. And that's not even counting the births/deaths. With the maintenance tag on, I can easily see that an article is ineligible. So when editors such as yourself demand individual CN tags, that just makes my work a lot more difficult and more time-consuming. —howcheng {chat} 21:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Three different editors were clearly of the opinion that this article did not need a "reference improve" tag. I can't tell if User:Moxy's post should also be interpreted the same way, or is merely showing you how to find the sources you think are missing. Perhaps you should rethink your priorities. "More difficult and time-consuming" and ease of determining if an article is eligible for OTD for you, vs leaving those of us who would like to improve the article hunting through the article to see if we can guess what you think needs sourcing. Meters (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Of course I'm aware of that because that is in fact what I'm doing: vetting articles in preparation for OTD. I prefer the tags because it makes my job a lot easier. For example, on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 2, where HBC is included, there are 25 articles that I need to go through to make sure they're free of issues. Then I go through the articles listed on May 2 to see if there any candidates there that could be included. So I'm looking at ~50 articles a day. And that's not even counting the births/deaths. With the maintenance tag on, I can easily see that an article is ineligible. So when editors such as yourself demand individual CN tags, that just makes my work a lot more difficult and more time-consuming. —howcheng {chat} 21:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's an almost 100 kb article. A tag at the top of the article does nothing to tell us where you think the references are needed. Tagging the 19 paragraphs you are concerned with is far more effective at actually getting sources for anything lacking, if that's your goal. Tagging articles your way the day before an article might appear in the "On this day" section of the main page does prevent such an appearance, as has been pointed out on your talk page more than once. Meters (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fine. [1]. It's not a matter of counting references. It's the fact that there are long swaths of text without any citations whatsoever. I get why you don't want the unsightly orange banner across the top, but when you need this many CN tags in an article, that's kind of the point of the tag in the first place. —howcheng {chat} 21:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, the sources sufficiently support the text as given. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article is extensively referenced and does not warrant a ref improve tag. As MarnetteD said in edit summary, use a CN on any claims that still need sourcing. Meters (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)