This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
discussion opened after two placements of negative tag in the article not supported at Talk[edit]
User:Onel5969, i politely enough asked in edit summary that you explain yourself at Talk page. Instead you reverted my removal of the unjustified negative tag on the article. Your own edit summary did convey some info, but it would be plainly decent of you to respond as requested and explain yourself here. Edit summaries are not a good way to communicate positively and increase understanding; they are rather a way to offend.
Anyhow, the "Examples" section has non-controversial statements supported fully, i believe, by the two articles linked. And as summaries of linked articles having extensive footnoting, it is not necessary to include all the referencing over. Sure if some controversial statement is made, then it could be reasonable to want specific inline referencing. But this is rather like how the lede of an article does not require footnotes when it summarizes footnoted material below. This is like how many, perhaps even most, list-articles work: each row can provide summary information from the linked articles. I do not believe that copying inline references over from linked articles would improve anything, and in fact it would detract from most readers' experience. Can you please explain your view if it differs. --Doncram (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, and I felt the brief statement in the edit summary covered it without belaboring the point. As I said there, the example section was a simple list, I would agree with your assessment, but since it isn't, it needs referencing as per WP:VERIFY. While you and I do not always see eye to eye, I always appreciate your contributions to the project. Onel5969TT me 03:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
