Talk:341 BC

References[edit]

No citations at all for this topic is a bit strange, so references template added.
Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, many people feel it's unnecessary on the year articles, as they should be "internally" references (by having references on the articles they link to) and it has been complained about that it was there before. Secondly, why point it out on one year article out of 2,500+? I'm removing it again. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 11:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK if it worked. But when you use the links in the sentence about Philip annexing Thrace to the three linked articles - Philip, Thrace and Athens, the first two don't mention the number 341 at all, and the third article mentions 341 only as an average number of sunshine hours. Hence the statement about the annexation of Thrace hasn't been directly or indirectly referenced. Let us suppose for a moment that one of these, or any other statement of the page, had been externally referenced via link, how would you then know that the specifics you were citing would never be edited out of the linked articles? That would create a systemic problem.

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that it was complained about when it was there before. Do you mean you had references and people complained about them? Or do you mean the references template you removed was there before and people complained about that?

Why 341BC? Because I happened to be looking for information on the Samnites. Sheer chance I stumbled on this page while doing something not at all related to editing Wikipedia. However, I guess it does raise the point for all year pages that don't contain internal references.

I think the issue of references does need some kind of resolution. Placing blanket statements here is not very encyclopaedic; there has to be a source for the statements. Any ideas on how to resolve this issue?

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by people complaining is that not so long ago, I added such reference templates to all year articles from 499 BC up to AD 1700, but people complained about it, so I had to remove them again.

When it comes to references, I completely agree with you. Of course, there should be reliable references (preferably good books) cited, but in my opinion, we're not there yet. The year articles (as well as many other areas here on Wikipedia) are sadly lacking in referencing and it's only the most recent years (i.e. 2010 and 2011) that are well referenced. If I had the time and the sources, I would gladly undertake the huge work of referencing the statements on the year articles. Alas, I do not have the time nor the proper sources. At the same time, it would be sad to remove all of the information that is there, only because it is not referenced. So, for the moment, I unfortunately don't know how to resolve it. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 14:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I.m not suggesting taking down the info pages, but I think there has to be some way to motivate people to contribute references. Let me think about it for a few days. I'll get back to you. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]