Talk:Interstate 275 (Michigan)

Primary sources

Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs) has been slathering Michigan road articles with {{primary sources}} tags for a month now with no discernible explanation. I find this behavior WP:POINTy especially on a featured article such as this. At no point have I witnessed the user attempt to give an explanation as to why they think the article is overly reliant on primary sources, nor do I feel that -- at least as this article is concerned -- an overuse of primary sources is an issue worthy of a tagging. If Horse Eye's Back feels the sourcing is too primary, then as the tagger they should be able to explain which parts need improved sourcing and why, not just drop the tag on the article and walk away.

I do feel that some of their tagging is justified with smaller highways than this, but I don't think it would ever be an issue on an Interstate highway with an extensive history of its construction (or lack thereof, since it was never finished to plan). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You don't feel that those articles overusing primary sources is a discernible explanation? I am always happy to explain any tag added or edit made. Did I miss attempts at communication from you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel it's justified because you're not explaining why you feel this is the case, or which specific parts are overly reliant on primary sources. You're just drive-by tagging FA-class articles, which comes off as disruptive. If you truly think that multiple articles on the same topic have the same sourcing issue, then a better approach is to take it to someplace like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan, or the articles' talk pages like we're doing now, before going all over the place with tags.

Again, I will concede that it's more understandable on smaller, shorter routes where there isn't much to say about them in the first place, but on a FA-class article about a major Interstate route, it's particularly egregious and can be seen as disruptive drive-by tagging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If we're having this discussion then it wasn't drive by tagging was it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

We're only having the discussion because you drive-by tagged. Initiate the discussion before you go crazy on the tags to determine whether your tagging is justified. I've dealt with overzealous taggers before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

No... For self obvious tags you tag first and then if someone if disagrees with that tag they can open a talk page discussion. Why don't you think the tag is appropriate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop dodging the question. Why do you think it is warranted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Because the majority of citations are to primary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a circular argument if I've ever seen one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That the majority of citations are to primary sources is an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's still a circular argument. "The primary sources tag is needed because the sources are primary, and because the sources are primary, the primary sources tag is needed." You have failed to say which sources are primary, or which content needs secondary sourcing, or even whether there are too many primary sources at all relative to the secondary ones. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There are 44 sources given with many used multiple times, we can go through them all if you would like. Do you agree that of the first five all but the Ludington Daily News is primary/aboutself? "Majority" is too many primary sources at all relative to the secondary ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)