Talk:William Connolly (VC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by C3MC2 in topic Removal of websites
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was created or added to during the Victoria Cross Reference Migration. It may contain material that was used with permission from victoriacross.net. |  |
Removal of websites
editI have removed a forum board at liverpool-genealogy.org.uk and generic website addresses (Ancestry.co.uk, Findmypast.co.uk, and findawill). The latter should be fairly obvious, because they do not support the text. Forums are not reliable sources, and if indeed the material that is being sourced can be found indirectly on that forum board, then a link to the original material should be used instead. Linking to a forum so that people can hunt-and-peck for the original source is both a combination of OR and not-the-point-of-references. Please do not re-add the removed sources. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is standard practice to indicate where information has come from. How come book references are allowed but not genealogy websites like Ancestry and FMP where the information can be accessed? Do you know how these websites work? You can access them free in libraries or get a free trial subscription. Why are you being so petty? You are not making sense. All source checking involves some work. I don't have a copy of the book currently referenced on the page how can that be supported using your logic? The Genealogy forum referenced provides expert analysis, transcripts of information from genealogy websites and images you can view. Perhaps you don't understand this subject? Or are you just trying to be difficult because you don't like what is on the page? A copy of the will can be obtained from the government's Find a will site and you can do a search on there and look at brief details of the probate record. Please stop this foolishness. C3MC2 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- We can all agree forums are not reliable sources. Homepages of a genealogy website is not reliable either, it's not even a source. Sources need to be specific and useful if there is an article on Ancestry.co.uk which speaks to this topic it may be possible to use it as a reference if it meets the requirements of WP:RS and you link directly to the article on the website. Even when someone uses a book, newspaper or journal as a reference they are required to provide specific information like volume, issue and page. Using the homepage of a site is paramount to using google.com as your reference. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added new reference sources as a compromise solution to this disagreement.C3MC2 (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)