Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Thanks: new section |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Thanks: Reply |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
I'm under a one-way IBAN at the moment, but I'm chuffed to be mentioned. :) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
I'm under a one-way IBAN at the moment, but I'm chuffed to be mentioned. :) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Ah, sorry about the mistake {{U|Newimpartial}}. Don't want to tempt anyone to break an IBAN but I either didn't know about this one or it's the fault of my very short-term memory when it comes to drama. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|<span style="color:purple">talk</span>]]''') 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: It was kind of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=970354568&oldid=970218187 stealth iban], involving one Admin, the complainant and one interloper. I may appeal it eventually, but I do find it helps me to slap my own hand, and others inevitably step in for what needs to be done. I don't know whether you remember the initial interaction that long proceeded the ban, just before your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vancouver_Rape_Relief_%26_Women%27s_Shelter&diff=951192905&oldid=951130318 here] in the page history, but that was far beyond my threshold for drama. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:04, 3 December 2020
Draft:Raging Fire (film)
Hey! Just a heads up, you declined the submission of Draft:Raging Fire (film) for article creation. It looks like the creator of the article went ahead and copy-pasted created the article in the main space anyways at Raging Fire (film). I've already put it up for deletion and left a message on their talk page, but wanted to let you know in case they follow up with you. BOVINEBOY2008 09:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bovineboy2008: thanks for the heads up and thanks for your edits relating to this topic. — Bilorv (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I read the comment, but I must admit I need help, please. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Fico Puricelli and thank you for the message. Wikipedia uses a set of characteristics which we call "notability" to decide whether a topic is suitable for an article. The simplest case would be in the case of a TV series, where there need to be significant coverage of the show in newspapers, magazines etc.—other secondary sources (those not produced by people involved in the creation of the TV series). Subtopics are trickier to characterise—for example, a TV series being notable does not mean that every episode should have a standalone page. In the case of a page about characters, there should be enough reliable sources that mean the information could not reasonably be contained on a single page about the TV series. For instance, a character who appears in two or three episodes of a long-running show is not significant for Wikipedia's purposes unless a lot of reviewers have commented on them.
- In the case of Digimon Adventure, I see that your draft lists a lot of antagonists and minor characters, but Wikipedia does not aim to be an aggregator of information about fiction. We just aim to record what has been discussed in substantial media criticism. So if there are lots of national reviewers who commented on (e.g.) Spadamon then the character needs to be mentioned, but otherwise the information isn't suitable for Wikipedia.
- In contrast, Wikia (or "Fandom" is another name for the site) does aim to be (in part) an aggregator of information about fiction and so you could contribute character information to the Digimon Wiki, or start your own wiki on the site for Digimon Adventure specifically.
- Let me know if this clears up your confusion, and if it doesn't then try to be as specific as possible about which parts you do not understand. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Heads up
Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the third nomination for Where's My Mind Tour and Blood Harmony. Also asked the reviewers to fail "I Lost a Friend" and Live at Third Man Records (Billie Eilish album) just so there are no more problems with you and potentially other editors. I admit, I am very young, but I am not a child. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi The Ultimate Boss and thank you for the message. I believe you have misunderstood the purposes of my communications. The issue that I wanted to point out is your actions on Where's My Mind Tour which ignored the feedback from two reviewers (one of which is me). Your re-nominations go against our collaborative process on Wikipedia. You used the terms "fight" and "beef" in other edits, but there is a difference between argument and constructive criticism or polite disagreement. Wikipedia editors must work together when they disagree, which is a normal part of the editing process. I have not asked you to withdraw any other nominations and so these actions are your decision, but not something I wanted you to do. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What I thought is that you would bring up all my nominations to GA reassessment and have them revoked, even after wasting countless hours bringing stubs up to higher quality. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Ultimate Boss: I have no plan to do this. Nonetheless, it is never a waste of time to improve articles—our articles serve our readers better when they are improved, regardless of our internal quality ratings. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it, given your comments in the other discussion below on the extent to which readers notice the icons. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
- @Sdkb: thank you for the message! I am interested in this topic and have left a comment there. Also happened to take a look at the whole VPP page and left a comment about the suggested article sweep, which I notice you also proposed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Piers Corbyn
There is already a subsection of conspiracy theories. But... it is not his given or professional designation. Remove it and libk as well. Stephenfryfan (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephenfryfan: You will need to discuss this matter on Talk:Piers Corbyn if you wish to create a new consensus, given that recent consensus has been established to describe Piers Corbyn as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bilorv!
You recently undid an edit to Philosophy Tube I made. Originally the summary of the article stated that the channel explores philosophy from a "left-wing perspective." I edited the article to remove that point. The point was a repetition of an opinion from one journalist in an editorial perspective, which was cited in the article's body. I disagree that articles should repeat opinions as uncited statements in their summaries. By this logic any opinion published on any media channel of any political persuasion can be repeated as though it were fact, out of context, in the most widely-read parts of articles. For example, one could edit the article about the company Uber and cite in the body that Katie Hopkins in the Daily Mail believes that Uber is less safe than taxis according to her column (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4911364/London-safer-without-Uber-writes-Katie-Hopkins.html), then repeat this in the article's summary that "Uber rides are less safe than taxis." Or one could edit the article about the 2017 Catalan independence referendum and cite in the body that Hopkins in the Daily Mail wrote that there was "the suggested involvement of Soros" in the debate (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4939154/KATIE-HOPKINS-Sickening-sight-police-beating-Catalans.html), then cite that in the article's summary as "George Soros was suggested to be involved in the debate."
Keen for your thoughts. 217.116.228.10 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! One could do neither of the things you give as examples for a few reasons: the Daily Mail is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP) and the information would not be due weight because there would be other sources which do not agree with the given assertions. You are correct that another reason is that opinion pieces are not treated as fact, but in let's stick to the Philosophy Tube case. In this case, the "left-wing" attribute is based on characterisation in the most professional, detailed, high-quality review of the subject that I know of—the article is about a work of art (the YouTube videos) rather than a company or collection of factual statements and so in this case, the interpretation of the art by professional critics becomes different to an opinion piece, rather being an important facet of the work to comment on.
- Since you dispute the information (I didn't know who would really dispute that Thorn is left-wing—himself, fans and opponents all widely characterise him as such) I can provide additional sources:
... made modest stars out of leftists like Natalie Wynn, a YouTube personality known as ContraPoints, and Oliver Thorn, a British commentator known as PhilosophyTube
New York TimesThorn is part of a contingent of YouTubers often referred to as “LeftTube”
Regeneration MagWith his YouTube channel "Philosophy Tube" he is one of a generation of new influencers who are turning to left-wing issues. In an entertaining way, with partly elaborately produced videos
(machine translated) Deutsche Welle- etc. etc. etc.
- You can find all of these sources in the article already, which is why the lead would be incomplete without the characterisation of the content as left-wing (since the channel began to change style in 2018). Let me know if this addresses your query, or if you have any other questions about Wikipedia. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Bilorv!
- Thanks for responding. Just to clarify: I don't _at all_ dispute the characterisation of Thorn that he holds opinions that are commonly opined to be "left-wing." Nevertheless, I remain troubled by its repetition as _fact_ on Wikipedia.
- I'd be much more satisfied if the article simply said "many sources have characterised Thorn as holding a "left-wing" perspective. Perhaps I should have just edited it to that. :) How do you feel about that edit?
- Here's my trouble with repeating "left-wing" as fact instead of opinion, regardless of the perceived merit of that opinion. "Left-wing" is inherently a subjective characterisation, and a relative one: I think it's reasonable to say that George H. W. Bush was more left-wing than, say, Joseph McCarthy. If something or someone is "left-wing" in general, it is only "left-wing" in relation to the average perceived political position of popular discourse (an example model of which: the 'Overton window'), which is ever-shifting on the "left-right" spectrum. That shifting nature of acceptability somewhat undermines whatever merit we assign to people's opinions. The present policy that highly-ranked opinion can be passed as fact implies that Wikipedia can be a mouthpiece that turns opinions into facts when they're biased by the current political centre. I respectfully disagree with this. Wikipedia supposed to repeat facts.
- "Left-wing" is also a characterisation that carries a lot of political weight, with the potential to cause readers to discredit Thorn before having engaged with his points. In other words, by itself it doesn't actually mean anything (as stated above), but will still cause some readers to form a bias towards or against whatever is called "left-wing." Thorn has often tried in his videos to "stay neutral," merely discussing topics based on their logical consistency, but nevertheless often results in a position that has been commonly associated with the "left-wing" (there's a good video of his on the free market economics of the video game industry that serves as an example). I'm not saying I don't think it's not fair that Thorn's opinions can be called "left-wing." I just don't think anyone ought to claim that on Wikipedia as "Thorn is left-wing," but instead "Source X claims Thorn is left-wing."
- I'm also unsure about the characterisation of his YouTube videos as "art." Philosophy Tube is comparable to a dramatised and filmed newspaper column: both consist of one person discussing a topic while attempting to entertain with the discussion. While that certainly necessitates artistic endeavours in the case of Philosophy Tube, is the work itself really subject to the characterisation "art"? Unless newspaper columns are also treated as art, in which case, fair enough.
- Thanks for discussing! 217.116.228.10 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for the polite discussion. I understand your perspective, but I'm afraid "many sources have characterised ..." is not really how we do things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on "fact" or "truth", but on a particular body of secondary and occasionally primary source literature. To that end, we have lots of bespoke notions like "verifiability" and "reliable sources" and "notability" which are much more specific than the common English words or phrases, but summarise our approach to building an encyclopedia—a tertiary source with no original thought. I understand that this is strange news to even most long-term readers, and I think we have made many failings in educating the public as to our purpose, so that they can engage in proper critical thinking and media literacy when reading our website.
- But anyway, this is what we are, and as such we do not need something to be "true", but "verifiable"—that is, if reliable sources have consensus in an idea then we repeat that idea, and otherwise we don't (we report mixed perspectives if we find them in RSes). When we say "X is true", it should always be implicit that we are really saying "The body of sources we regard as reliable have, overall, assessed X as 'true'". Readers should look at the sources of an article to find out what we are regarding as reliable (and can maybe even infer what we regard as unreliable).
- No doubt the founding ideas of Wikipedia would make an interesting topic for a Philosophy Tube video, but I'll recommend you one that does exist for the question of whether his work is art: "YouTube: Art or Reality?" I'm not a world expert, but I believe Thorn characterises his work as "art". Reliable sources also discuss its aesthetics, message, filming style etc. in the way that other audiovisual works of art are analysed. Nonetheless, for our purposes it's some sort of media, rather than a base object or event in the real world (such as a company or a referendum), so for the purposes I meant above perhaps I should have used a more general phrase like "piece of media", as my argument did not quite require the full specificity of the videos as "art".
- Your comment about Bush and an Overton window is a common one—these are arguments that are not for us to engage in, but the reliable sources to. If the editorial team of a newspaper with stringent fact-checking policies calls a person's content "left-wing", then they have done the work for us. In many ways, learning to edit Wikipedia is learning to "write without a voice", to just be a vehicle for the body of literature we identify as "reliable" and "significant". This approach has many flaws, but it has allowed us to create a great volume of content which is widely read and sought out by people around the world, while maintaining at least some positive respect and reputation. In my opinion (not shared by all editors), we are not politically or philosophically neutral (I would argue no such thing exists), but take the political stance in the middle of the organisations we regard as reliable.
- Thanks for reading this carefully and I look forward to your reply. — Bilorv (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the courtesy ping at Me to We, though I don't think I need to reinsert any content. I wasn't sure what the game of the now-blocked editor was, but they were definitely editing in a suspect way and so kudos to you for the intervention. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
For being the voice of reason and apparently one of the only people to understand that our duty as editors isn't to assuage the feelings of other editors in terms of content, but provide a summary of what independent reliable sources say for readers. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
This is for all of the Community episode articles you've written over the past few months, which recently allowed every episode of the show to have its own article (and not just as stubs – they're all properly done). I tried to help with a few articles, but even when I slowed down, you kept at it and finished the task. Your work is greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you, RunningTiger123! I think you're underselling your own contributions—it's an accomplishment of both of us that the set is now complete. — Bilorv (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
WE Charity
So what I did was right, but instead of simply replacing the link, I leave it as it is and add an archive instead? TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TheKing'sMongrelSon: thanks for the message! Yes, we like to include the original link even if we add an archive link. To archive all references in a page automatically, you can go to
View history -> Fix dead links
and then (maybe needing to log in or grant access at some point) you should see an interface entitled "Analyze a page", where you can click the checkbox for "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" and press "Analyze". — Bilorv (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)- Well, it's a good thing there's a button for it, because I'm not great at wikicode... TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
NYPOST as unreliable source on WP...
...in regards to your revert I can not see how it relates to article that is mere non-political reporting that was problematic in NYPOST: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police."
...also I wanted to place another link, to do it easily as there is no functional global whitelist.
This is also very far from useful PR and has no impact to major company like they are.
Zblace (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Zblace but a blog post by Pornhub would not show due weight for this content, because it is a promotional campaign by the company. Wikipedia is not a place to report promotional campaigns unless they have been covered by reliable sources. NYPost is marked
Generally unreliable
at WP:RSP with the descriptors:generally unreliable for factual reporting ... editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication
. This applies to all subject areas, not just politics (though it is particularly poor for politics). — Bilorv (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Release date
Is it actually the norm to wait until a film has a release date for it to become an article on Wikipedia? I thought it was only necessary that a film finished production and passed WP:GNG. Anyway, my point is, I don't think it was fair to decline this draft for Distant. Horacio Vara (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Horacio Vara and thank you for the message. I'm seeing only routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE), which is not enough for GNG, and without a release date and in an pandemic where much of the entertainment industry is subject to uncertainty, I read this as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Your two options are to wait until there is further coverage or to submit it again for another reviewer opinion. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: I don't see how this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL". The film has coverage of when actors were cast, when filming began, and when filming concluded. That alone is enough to pass WP:GNG. The only instances where films fall under WP:CRYSTAL is when they're in development, or have just begun filming. Horacio Vara (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but coverage of actors being cast and filming is routine, at least to some degree. The article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if you accept the premises that the article does not currently meet GNG, because the coverage is routine, and that CRYSTAL prohibits articles on content which will only be notable if a future event takes place (the film's release). You do not have to accept these premises, but this is an explanation of my position. I hope this makes sense. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Ok, let's take a look at WP:CRYSTAL.
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
Is Distant notable? Yes. Will it be released? With filming having concluded, and Amblin Entertainment (a major production company) producing, yes. Is the article apredetermined list
? No. Does this articlepresent original research
? No, there are multiple secondary sources on the film. Finally, could the film be considered a "rumor
"? No, it's already complete. With this in mind, the Distant draft violates exactly zero things in WP:CRYSTAL, so, because of this, it should be moved into mainspace. Horacio Vara (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Ok, let's take a look at WP:CRYSTAL.
- Yes, but coverage of actors being cast and filming is routine, at least to some degree. The article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if you accept the premises that the article does not currently meet GNG, because the coverage is routine, and that CRYSTAL prohibits articles on content which will only be notable if a future event takes place (the film's release). You do not have to accept these premises, but this is an explanation of my position. I hope this makes sense. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: I don't see how this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL". The film has coverage of when actors were cast, when filming began, and when filming concluded. That alone is enough to pass WP:GNG. The only instances where films fall under WP:CRYSTAL is when they're in development, or have just begun filming. Horacio Vara (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Question?
Hi, I am currently working on My Love from the Star to take it for GAN. I have already submitted a request at Wikiproject: Guild of Copy Editors for copy editing. The mentioned article doesn't have episode(s) list. As it was a concern at the earlier assessment; my question is that does a Television article compulsorily need an episode list or the synopsis/plot section is suffice. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 03:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi -ink&fables and thanks for the question. MOS:TVPLOT says:
For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary.
- In this case, the article does have a plose plot summary, so it definitely shouldn't have an episode table as well. You could say that this guideline says it is better to have an episode table instead where a show is easy to give episode-by-episode breakdowns (e.g. if episodes have standalone stories, or the events happen in chronological order). But personally, I would be happy as a GA reviewer for the article to have just a prose summary, not an episode table (but also happy if there was an episode table and no prose summary).
- This is just my interpretation—those editors all seemed to favour an episode table but didn't really give a reason, so I would need to hear more from them to understand their opinions. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television for further advice, because I can only give you my opinion, not necessarily what the WikiProject as a whole would usually do.
- Hope this is helpful! — Bilorv (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Bilorv for answering my question. I will surely ask the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, if I feel it is needed. -ink&fables «talk» 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
I'm under a one-way IBAN at the moment, but I'm chuffed to be mentioned. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry about the mistake Newimpartial. Don't want to tempt anyone to break an IBAN but I either didn't know about this one or it's the fault of my very short-term memory when it comes to drama. — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- It was kind of a stealth iban, involving one Admin, the complainant and one interloper. I may appeal it eventually, but I do find it helps me to slap my own hand, and others inevitably step in for what needs to be done. I don't know whether you remember the initial interaction that long proceeded the ban, just before your comment here in the page history, but that was far beyond my threshold for drama. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)