Talk:List of winged unicorns

Unconfirmed dates list

This list needs to be more tied into the major lists. It's also not clear what some of these examples reference (Doctor Who? My Little Pony? MLP, which series?). Basically, this looks like a Misc. category that hasn't gotten any attention. Newjerseyliz (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So you mean like:

Main article: Example (list)

Text...

If so I can help with the MLP ones. --Yellow1996 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Updating

Boldly recategorized the article and place all the unsourced stuff that's giving people fits into hidden text until someone feels like cleaning it up further. Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Beats having Pen delete them repeatedly. I'd really like to know what standard of proof is needed here. The very cover of Kleo has a winged unicorn on the cover. Ranze (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lookey, lookey! I seen it. I seen it!!!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

List policy

per WP:LISTN:

The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability

So everyone please stop removing stuff from the list. 174.92.134.248 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

you are misreading and misapplying. the sentence you cite above is in the discussion about the notability of a list article, and the relevant clause for context is for notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Burden of sources

@TheRedPenOfDoom: regarding WP:BURDEN there is a part which does not seem to impact you much:

1. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article.
2. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references
3. consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.
4. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
5. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Per 1, I argue that the answer to "whether material should be removed" is no, because the material is very simple and non-controversial, and the overall state of the article is unfinished, so simply using template:fact next to challenged items is the best way to improve things. "How quickly" should be months or years, you should assume good faith and that people are not making things up.

Per 2, you ignore objections. You could simply use <!-- --> to invisible the stuff you object to without removing the data. Yet instead you insist on hampering efforts to organize the data. You don't invisible it and you don't put it on the talk. You don't allow it to exist for people to collectively work on together. This is true information people are in the early steps of prettying up sources to your specifications and rather than help, you sabotage it.

Per 3, the step of tagging and waiting for source improvement appears to be rushed through when it is engaged in at all.

Per 4, do you actually have a real concern that something is not reliable? You have removed content where on the wikipedia article itself there is an image showing the show's protagonist being a winged unicorn, namely Kleo the Misfit Unicorn. This leads me to think you are looking for excuses to delete true content, and not that you think the content is untrue.

WP:LISTN reduces the burden of sourcing. Even simple proof that a winged unicorn exists is adequate. You have removed content like Sofia the First even though a screenshot from the show depicting the winged unicorn merry-go-round was provided.

Per 5, I think you do believe this is verifiable and simply don't care to help. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple options that one may take when one encounters uncited content. However, there is only two options once uncited content has been challenged and removed: 1) provide an inline citation to a reliably published source or 2) leave it out of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And WP:LISTN does NOT remove the burden of WP:V"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. " and "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: it is not wiki text being linked as a source, but rather a screencap from the episode which happens to be hosted there. You can go watch the named/dated episodes to verify, just as you might a book. Why are you taking a stance that television-published works are not reliable sources but paper-published works are reliable?

We don't need secondary/tertiary stuff to interpret stuff here, primary stuff will do when it is simply for the purpose of illustrating that a horn and a pair of wings coexisted. Even when this has appeared on the cover of comic books it doesn't seem to be enough for you, even though that IS published. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:IPC, WP:IINFO yes, we do need third party validation. we are not just a collection of junk that we seen somewhere. We are an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: at WP:NOTRS we are told that primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations" and that "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". While we are told "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided", this doesn't apply here, because nothing is large. I'm not using a primary source for a large block of information, I'm using it to take specific facts: wings and a horn coexisting on a horse. This can't reasonably be viewed as a large block of information.

If you are very concerned, this part can apply:

• When editing articles and the use of primary sources is a concern, in-line templates, such as {{primary source-inline}} and {{better source}}, or article templates, such as {{primary sources}} and {{refimprove science}}, may be used to mark areas of concern.

IPC/IINFO are not written about list pages, LISTN takes precedence.

I would not oppose your adding these to express your desire that a provided reliable primary source be supplemented with a reliable secondary one, but it should end there. Primary sources are valid here, and I do not see how your disliking that allows you to simply remove the bullets at a whim. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the entire list be primary sourced. that is "a lot". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: methinks we are interpreting that segment differently. "Blocks on Sources" has both plural: I see this as speaking en masse about "a large block of material based purely on a primary source". It seems like you are viewing this as a plural of "a large block of material based purely on primary sources"

I believe a bunch of tiny blocks of information are not the same as making a large block. The tiny block is conveying a basic fact, a large block would be interpreting the facts into complex ideas, something that we'd use second/tert sources for, and something which goes outside the scope of a list page.

Second/Tert sources are used to convey individual notability. Thus is not required for list pages. We could use them if we're unable to find a primary source to serve as evidence of existence, but that's a out all that's being done here. Demanding the level of source needed to do something not done in lists seems to be skipping the point of a list article, which is to consolidate not elaborate. 64.228.91.102 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)