AussieLegend (talk | contribs) |
FleetCommand (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::That's a fair enough evaluation and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters&diff=629174372&oldid=629167994 your edit] seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters&diff=prev&oldid=564139962] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
::That's a fair enough evaluation and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters&diff=629174372&oldid=629167994 your edit] seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_characters&diff=prev&oldid=564139962] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::Hi guys. I'd say that restoring this sentence in the first place was inappropriate, even with a source. "She is one of the only characters" is a [[WP:WEASEL|weasel word]] fiasco. It does not bar out the meaning of ''everyone can do it, including the "characters", and "she" is one of them''; yet, it gives the impression that ''she is the only one!'' FC, AL and Rinellie have all treated the "she is the only one" point of view, meaning that the weasel word trap was skillfully baited. Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
:::Hi guys. I'd say that restoring this sentence in the first place was inappropriate, even with a source. "She is one of the only characters" is a [[WP:WEASEL|weasel word]] fiasco. It does not bar out the meaning of ''everyone can do it, including the "characters", and "she" is one of them''; yet, it gives the impression that ''she is the only one!'' FC, AL and Rinellie have all treated the "she is the only one" point of view, meaning that the weasel word trap was skillfully baited. Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::And "most notably" is a [[WP:PEACOCK]]. It is not notable at all that she once controlled Sheldon. Everyone can; and everyone has done, including Miss Riley's chicken. (An ordinary chicken that drove him up a tree in fear.) One of the comic premises of the show is that Sheldon is half-robot half-infant. There are two ways of controlling him: Bullying him or persuading him with the right words. Now, if people did any of this, the show would be a documentary about bullying or subversion. It is a comedy because people consistently try to treat him like an actual adult (despite having discovered times and again that the resemblance is just superficial). |
|||
::::By the way, do you have any clue as to why AussieLegend is replying himself? (See his post below). [[User:FleetCommand|Fleet Command]] ([[User talk:FleetCommand|talk]]) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, "one of the only" is far from "is the only". --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 12:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
:::No, "one of the only" is far from "is the only". --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 12:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
Looks good here but I have to ask if there are sources for anyone else being able to do what Bernadette did? --[[Special:Contributions/49.180.163.35|49.180.163.35]] ([[User talk:49.180.163.35|talk]]) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
Looks good here but I have to ask if there are sources for anyone else being able to do what Bernadette did? --[[Special:Contributions/49.180.163.35|49.180.163.35]] ([[User talk:49.180.163.35|talk]]) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I run a [[Whois]] on this IP address and guess what I found? It is exactly from the same region that AussieLegend's user page says he lives in. The service provider is located in New South Wales. [[User:FleetCommand|Fleet Command]] ([[User talk:FleetCommand|talk]]) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:25, 12 October 2014
Television List‑class | ||||||||||
|
Fictional characters List‑class | |||||||
|
Applying REDNOT
I was looking at this edit, and I'm not quite convinced that WP:REDNOT applies. REDNOT says "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created". The problem that I see is that the actors appearing on TBBT do not fit the category of "articles that are not likely to be created". I would say that no name actors appearing on TBBT are likely to get noticed and may certainly become notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. They are certainly more likely to have articles created than the example given at the top of the page like this one. Furthermore, the nutshell states "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Something that is certainly not clear as to at what point in their career will the actors' notability cross the threshold for a Wikipedia article. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read beyond the first sentence. Paragraph 4 says "Red links to personal names should be avoided" and explains "Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to people being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or being involved in other forms of conduct that might be considered harmful to the subject's reputation. The risk of misidentification is especially concerning when dealing with living people." Because it's "especially concerning" we err on the side of caution and don't redlink personal names. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Minor Error
In the section on recurring character Lucy, there is a slight inconsistency, which I have been unable to find is an intentional mistake copied from the related episodes or a copy-error. ...and breaks up with Raj in a text message at the end of the episode and ...to apologize to Raj for breaking up with him via email contradict one another. I've seen both episodes but am unable to recall if this is from the episode or from translation onto the wiki. --KizC (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
People who can control Sheldon
Yesterday, FleetCommand removed a portion of content from the article with the edit summary, "Deleted factually inaccurate sentence. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can. But here is hint if you are actually looking into it: Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon."[1] I cited the actual episode that appears to have prompted this addition,[2] but FleetCommand reverted, this time claiming "Reverted WP:SYNTH. The citation gives one instance. It does not show several instance nor excludes others".[3] FleetCommand sbsequently started a discussion on his talk page,[4] but since article content is involved, it should really be discussed on the article's talk page, so I'm moving the discussion here. For the record, I've restored the edit and changed the text to address FleetCommand's latest concerns.[5] The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:
@AussieLegend and Codename Lisa: Alright. I'll start by discussing the contribution, okay? Article has this unreferenced sentence: "Most notably, she is one of the only characters in the series who can control Sheldon, mostly because of her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children." I believe this sentence is outright wrong and must be removed. AussieLegend contests this by adding a source that shows one instance in which "she" (Bernadette) ordered Sheldon and he obeyed. I contend that this type of source is WP:SYNTH because it does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted doing so on other occasions and failed. Indeed, Sheldon's mother has trice directly interfered in Sheldon's life and has successfully ordered him to do something. (In addition, once in the show, the Department of Homeland Security called Sheldon's mother and Sheldon implies that this dissuaded him from buying enriched Uranium.) Penny has twice successfully made Sheldon do something. Leonard has once succeeded in season 7. What do you think? Fleet Command (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read WP:SYNTH because there is no synth involved. Episodes are reliable sources for content within episodes and the citation used directly referenced the episode in which Bernadette showed she was able to control Sheldon because of "her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children". I even included the relevant quotation. That the source "does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted doing so on other occasions and failed" is not even close to WP:SYNTH. That it "does not show several instance nor excludes others" is also not SYNTH and it's not even relevant. The citation only needs to support the claim being made and it does show that she has been able to control Sheldon, which is what the claim said. We can't deal with what we haven't seen in other episodes. That itself is WP:OR. The claim doesn't say that others cannot control Sheldon, it says that she is one who can and that has been demonstrated. That Sheldon's mother can control Sheldon does not preclude the possibility that others an ontrol him. Your original reason for removing the claim included "here is hint if you are actually looking into it: Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon" in the edit summary.[6] Clearly, that isn't correct. Your claim now that the citation "does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same" is inconsistent with that. If others an control Sheldon then "Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon" is wrong. We've seen very few instances where Sheldon can be controlled and this was one of them, so saying it's notable and that Bernadette is one of only a few people who can control him is, based on what we have seen and what we have sources for, is very correct. Even assuming that Sheldon's mother, Penny and Leonard have also been able to control him, although we've seen numerous times where Penny and Leonard have tried but been unable to control him (especially Leonard), that's still only a few people, so the claim that was made is still valid and the citation still supports the claim. However, a minor rewrite of the section you're having issues with should address your current conerns. Wholesale deletion is ompletely unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- So much text... Anyway, your source gives backup for the one time Bernadette managed to control Sheldon. It does not give backup for Bernadette being able to do so "whenever necessary", nor does it backup that she is the only one being able to control Sheldon. Doing it once isn't the same as always able to do so. Being able to do a somersault flawlessly once doesn't mean you can always do it flawlessly and at command. -Rinellie (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair enough evaluation and your edit seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[7] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi guys. I'd say that restoring this sentence in the first place was inappropriate, even with a source. "She is one of the only characters" is a weasel word fiasco. It does not bar out the meaning of everyone can do it, including the "characters", and "she" is one of them; yet, it gives the impression that she is the only one! FC, AL and Rinellie have all treated the "she is the only one" point of view, meaning that the weasel word trap was skillfully baited. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- And "most notably" is a WP:PEACOCK. It is not notable at all that she once controlled Sheldon. Everyone can; and everyone has done, including Miss Riley's chicken. (An ordinary chicken that drove him up a tree in fear.) One of the comic premises of the show is that Sheldon is half-robot half-infant. There are two ways of controlling him: Bullying him or persuading him with the right words. Now, if people did any of this, the show would be a documentary about bullying or subversion. It is a comedy because people consistently try to treat him like an actual adult (despite having discovered times and again that the resemblance is just superficial).
- Hi guys. I'd say that restoring this sentence in the first place was inappropriate, even with a source. "She is one of the only characters" is a weasel word fiasco. It does not bar out the meaning of everyone can do it, including the "characters", and "she" is one of them; yet, it gives the impression that she is the only one! FC, AL and Rinellie have all treated the "she is the only one" point of view, meaning that the weasel word trap was skillfully baited. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair enough evaluation and your edit seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[7] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, do you have any clue as to why AussieLegend is replying himself? (See his post below). Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, "one of the only" is far from "is the only". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good here but I have to ask if there are sources for anyone else being able to do what Bernadette did? --49.180.163.35 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I run a Whois on this IP address and guess what I found? It is exactly from the same region that AussieLegend's user page says he lives in. The service provider is located in New South Wales. Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)