This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles 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.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves
References
To MsHyde: This article has a "references" section, and there is an entry therein. A footnote is not necessary--the listing of the entry in the references section constitutes a citation. The unreferenced template is supposed to be used for articles that do not have references. This is not such an article. Furthermore, according to the template's page, the general consensus for use of the template is that it is supposed to be placed "either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." This article does not have an ""empty 'References' section," so the appropriate place for it--if it were an appropriate template for this article in the first place--would be here on the talk page. -- Takwish | Talk19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus about where to place the tag, and if there are no references, I think it is better to place it on top, so passersby can see it and add references. (Otehrwise, in the specific section(s) if only sections have no references, not the whole article.) The reference you have added is not a citation--linking to Amazon is not a reference, etc--need the ISBN. Also, specific page numbers of the book should be cited within the article for controversial claims. I have requested citations for particular claims.-MsHyde19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, yes, there is no consensus on where to place the tag. However the tag's page does state that "most suggest..." etc. Please note that I did not add the reference in question. It was already there. Personally, I have done very little editing on this article, other than adding the current photo. However, this article DOES cite a reference, contrary to the the statement in the "unreferenced" template. Your suggestions that the citation of this reference be improved in form (by adding an ISBN, etc.) and that specific page numbers be provided for controversial claims are valid suggestions--but they don't warrant the use of the "unreferenced" tag at the top of the article. -- Takwish | Talk20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for incorrect assumption that you added the reference. However, the reference tag explicitly states "does not cite references," not merely does not have references. Also, this book--as explained in the article--is not a reference for the whole article. It is a reference for one point of view about this place. References for the rest of the article are needed. And in-line citations of the references, especially for controversial claims.-MsHyde20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the reference to Mannix's claims.......From Page 90 and 91 of the Sept 1978 New English Library edition (where Mannix attempts to add support to the theory from an occult/symbolism expert). FWIW, one can find web pages that poo-poo Mannix's claims. IMHO the level of referencing being requested here seems to go beyond what would normally seem reasonable -Proteus420:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find much support in the dictionary[1] for your rather narrow usage of the word cite. However, you may be using a specialized definition in use here on Wikipedia. If so, please educate me by pointing me to the Wikipedia guidance page that states that having references and citing references are distinctly different things. --Takwish | Talk22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For controversial claims, you should cite the reference inline. You added this material, and you are aware is is disputed/controversial/theoretical. Further, leaving it at the bottom implies that the book is the reference for the whole article, and it is not.-MsHyde23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add the material--that was Proteus4. I'm looking forward to your response regarding the usage of the word cite, though. If you can't back up your assertion that "having" references and "citing" references are distinctly different things here on Wikipedia, then I'd like to ask you to remove the "unreferenced" tag. I'm not disputing your use of the "fact" tags, at this point.--Takwish | Talk23:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
