| Revision as of 03:01, 21 May 2015 editPburka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers30,698 edits del. very old conversations← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:45, 2 July 2015 edit undoEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Citations in lede: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| |archive = User talk:Pburka/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Pburka/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Citations in lede == | |||
| As a general rule, because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Where the ref is in the body of the text, I don't see a need -- especially where the subject is not a living person. I don't think the NW article required citations in the lede, as they were clearly in the body, and agree with the editor who removed your c-needed tag. --] (]) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:45, 2 July 2015
| This is Pburka's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
Citations in lede
As a general rule, because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Where the ref is in the body of the text, I don't see a need -- especially where the subject is not a living person. I don't think the NW article required citations in the lede, as they were clearly in the body, and agree with the editor who removed your c-needed tag. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)