This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coldplay, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Coldplay on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColdplayWikipedia:WikiProject ColdplayTemplate:WikiProject ColdplayColdplay articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
I restored the reference that GustavoCza twice removed and Duncan.Hull has restored. It would be better to discuss it here than to continue to go back and forth. I restored it because I agree with Duncan.Hull's edit summary of "ReinstatingWho's Who (UK), because it is a more reliable source of biographical information than capitalfm.com (etc), seeWP:RSand multiple sources are preferable to a single oneWP:3REFS". GustavoCza, why do you want to remove it? John (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned in the summary. Keep clogging up this article with a bunch of unnecessary repeated references though, I'm sure it's great for readability. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense to me. A reader just sees one extra superscript character, and has one other means of verifying the material. Readability for editors isn't a primary purpose here, but verifiability is. Does that make sense? John (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @GustavoCza unfortunately not all Wikipedia:Reliable sources are available to all users, but this is not a valid reason for excluding them.
Wikipedia editors can gain access to Who's Who (UK) and many other useful resources that are not openly accessible through the Wikipedia Library. If you don't already have access valuable resources like these, its worth getting access, see WP:LIBRARY
Once again: if the source lacks accessibility it's not good enough, reliable or not. Such references should be a last case scenario. Chris is the band member that gets the most attention, if Capital (one of the biggest radio stations in the United Kingdom) is not enough for you, I'm sure there are other places to search. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why multiple citations are a good idea rather than relying on a single source. In this case you have one more reliable one (ukwhoswho.com) and one more accessible one (capitalfm) Duncan.Hull (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm arguing to include both sources, see for example Wikipedia:Multiple sources. Can you explain why you think having multiple sources for a given fact is a bad idea? It supports, rather than detracts from, the goal of Wikipedia:Verifiability
If you think a source is accessible but not reliable you have to replace it with one that is both accessible and reliable, not cluttering up the text. That guideline is not doing anything other than excusing laziness. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to replace anything, we can just add another citation. Unless someone can direct me to it, I can't find a Wikipedia guideline that says you must always prefer using a single citation.
So “cluttering up the text” is a weak argument because we're talking about the difference between these two kinds of things:
Joe Bloggs was born on the 9th December 1983 in Bla-bla-town [1]
Joe Bloggs was born on the 9th December 1983 in Bla-bla-town [1,2]
As John pointed out above, the reader sees one extra number. I still can't understand how one extra number could be described that as “clutter”. It doesn't even come close to Wikipedia:Citation overkill - but is a small improvement to an article that we are both trying to make better while supporting Wikipedia:Verifiability.
As for laziness, it is lazier to have just one citation.
On the Early Life section alone there are sentences with three to five references, so I don't like the idea of further adding to the mess. I have managed to promote pages here on Wikipedia to Good or Featured status without using multiple references for a single statement, so the guideline you are talking about is obviously not to be followed religiously either. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too have worked on Good and Featured articles and I can assure you that having two or three references is usually better than having one. For example, your one source may be excellent but may not be readily accessible to all readers; it may be behind a paywall, it could be a paper book which is not freely available in digital form. Or a website can just go down, for short or long term. There is also the question of balance; relying overmuch on one source can lead to a slanted view of something, where a spread of sources from very different points of view would give a more balanced view. But that's getting way beyond what we are talking about here. For simple matters of fact, two or three will do no harm. More might be overkill. Thank you both, by the way, for engaging so passionately, thoughtfully and knowledgably about the process of editing. It brings joy to my wizened old heart. But essentially I agree with Duncan.Hull on this occasion. John (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
