 | Montana Low‑importance | ||||||
| |||||||
Cite
Apologies for the edit summary, but that is the perception when someone asking for a citation and source is disregarded as a drive-by tag, whatever that is supposed to mean. I read the article, noted that Wikipedia claims this fire lookout is "significant" (which is a highly objective term) and asked for a source that stated it was significant with the convenient templates that Wikipedia provides for that purpose, but it was ignored, and dismissed as "Rv drive-by tag" by an Acroterion.
I'm not sure why one would dismiss this request for a source, clearly whether or not something is "significant" is a matter of opinion, and it should be sourced, at least if this website is serious about its policies. I didn't mean it as a slight, sheesh. I can see why no one trusts this site and why new participation is falling off. If this is how you treat all newcomers trying to help, it's a wonder this site still exists at all.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus is that listing on the National Register of Historic Places inherently confers notability. Given that, no citation is needed to back that up. The listing on the NRHP is documented twice. This is a very minor NRHP property, of that there is no doubt. My apologies for characterizing the tag in that manner, but drive-by tagging is a problem: it's essential that you describe what you'd like to see, and "drive-by" is the common expression for apparently inappropriate cite tags. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- {{cite}} tags are more appropriate for statements that really need to be backed up, like "Richard Nixon's claimed Australian ancestry". Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)