Talk:Ricardo Hurtado
| 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 sourced must 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 rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
WP:SUBCAT
WP:SUBCAT does not explain why the word actor, which is already masculine, needs male added to it to make the category redundant. Female actress would be just as silly. Abel (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
]
- For the actor categories Wikipedia:CATGENDER applies. Looking at Category:21st-century American male actors as one example that applies here; there was a suggestion to delete and subsequent discussionabout that. The decision was to retain.
- Given that the category exists, it seems appropriate to use.
- Icarusgeek (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On WP:CITEBUNDLE
The guideline
WP:REFNAME
.
The other issue here is that the kind of references used at this article (and how they're inevitably formatted) doesn't really lend itself to CITEBUNDLE'ing – in fact, the way the refs were bundled at this article before made it actually more difficult to figure out what was referencing what, and exactly how many references were being used at this article. (CITEBUNDLING would seem to be something that would be better used if the references tended to be "book"-type references, with just page number differences, and such.)
Ultimately, as
WP:CITEBUNDLE is explicitly an optional reference format choice, I believe there must be some quantifiable benefit to bundling, over not bundling, references. And in the case of this specific article, I don't feel there is any net "benefit" to bundling. (In fact, in general, I would say that CITEBUNDLING is not a benefit at BLP-type articles, and should probably be avoided. CITEBUNDLING seems to be something that might lend itself more to scientific and historical topics...) In any case, I feel that CITEBUNDLE'ing is not a net benefit at this specific article, and that each of the sources should remain as standalone references. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
]