User talk:TedEdwards/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

RfC closure

Please request an uninvolved editor to assess and close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, do not make your decision unilaterally without a formal closure, otherwise it will again lead to edit warring. Hzh (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And where does it say I should do that? --TedEdwards 21:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The RfC page WP:RFCCLOSE. It's the standard procedure. Hzh (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I see someone else had requested it already, so please just leave it until someone else closes it. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to find the exact text in WP:RFCCLOSE that says "an uninvolved editor must close each and every RfC". --TedEdwards 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no "must" since it gives a number of possibilities, but read what it says. Which of the possibilities applies here? There are difference of opinions in the discussion, therefore it is not clear cut and obvious, you should not do it yourself as an involved editor. Someone else has already determined that it needs a formal closure and requested one. Just leave it. Hzh (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Plot question for Iron Throne episode

Hi there! Because my ping to you failed the last time, I'm not sure if it was successful this time, I thought I'd leave a message for you here to let you know about it if that's okay :) I left a question for you here about a plot detail and I wanted to know your thoughts? Thank you! Anatashala (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anatashala: Thanks. Your ping did work this time, and I thought I had responded (but evidently not). --TedEdwards 22:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Thanks, that helps me out a lot! Means my ping worked this time, so maybe I'm learning...? ;) Anatashala (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anatashala: I've actually just looked at the edit history for the talk page and found out why the ping failed; it's because you intially forgot to sign your post, and for a ping to work, the template must be added in the same edit as your signature (see your two edits: [1] and [2]). btw. pinging editors on their own user talk page is redundant; whenever someone edits a user's talk page, that user automatically gets a notification. --TedEdwards 22:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that! I'll remember that. No pinging on that user when on their talk page and if I want the ping to work, use "ping|(username)" and sign it with the four tildas within the same edit, right? Anatashala (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comment

Consider filing at WP:SPI. If you want to send me an SPI draft to review, I could look at it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thanks for the reply. I should have made it clear earlier, but the reason I haven't filed an SPI is because I doubt the reason for any sockpuppetry is malevonent. I personally think the reason is to avoid harassment. Considering this, do you still think I should still consider SPI? --TedEdwards 15:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Whoever creates an SPI (if they do) they would need to show that the multiple identities were used for abuse. I thought there was a possibility of such a charge, because the various IPs were doing some changes similar to those of the registered user. Since the latter has been given additional rights, there is an expectation they will behave well. This might be arguable if they are using IPs to back up their own edits on the same articles. The user concerned seems to have decreased their presence on Wikipedia because of (they say) too much opposition to their edits. The best result for all parties would be a discussion leading to agreement. Hiding their continued presence, if they intend to make controversial changes, is not a good thing. If instead they are only doing minor maintenance edits probably no one would care. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

List of American Horror Story episodes

Sources don't need to list down an official confirmation to be considered reliable. If that were the case, millions of sources would be unreliable, given their lack of "official confirmation". In fact, we would be relying solely on WP:PRIMARY; however, Wikipedia relies on WP:SECONDARY: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Given this policy, and if multiple sources state it's a 10-episode season, then we can cite is as a 10-episode season based on secondary sources. Is there a reason why we should no longer use secondary sources? -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Every reliable bit of infomation should one way or another come from FX/Ryan Murphy etc., as that is the only place that completely verifiable info can come from. When a secondary source, which is making no link to FX, mentions in passing that the season is 10 episodes, it can't be taken as reliable. See the quote in WP:OR A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources. For instance, a passage in a book on WW1 (a secondary source) would reference everything to primary sources, then provide interpretion and what have you. If it didn't provide any primary sources it was basing it's interpretation on, it wouldn't be a secondary source (hence the term "secondary" and "primary"), simply an unreliable load of crap. So as that mention of ten episodes didn't make any reference to a primary source, those words can't be taken as a secondary source. Entire websites aren't primary sources or secondary sources or whatever, just the bit of info we're collecting from the website (in this case about three words). So we don't need to rely on just primary sources, secondary sources that make attributions to primary sources are fine, as long as they make those attributions. Hope I make sense. --TedEdwards 13:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Again, concerning your first sentence, that's relying solely on primary sources. That's not how Wikipedia runs. I see the quote, and the multiple sources have indeed "provide[d] an author's own thinking"; where they got their "primary sources" is not our concern. For a very similar example, Radio Times is apparently a reliable source; do we have BBC or Steven Moffat confirmation on this? Or can "their word can be taken on this"? Can "their word can be taken on this" when it comes to Entertainment Weekly and Elle.com? What makes this different? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The difference with Gliese 581 D is that it is confirmed by a primary source (see this from the BBC), and so RT's claim is verifiable and, per WP:IAR, we should get away with it, as RT's claim is obviously true even though they haven't actually provided a primary source. However, I've found no primary source regarding the number of episodes in 1984, so it's impossible to prove the veracity of any non-primary source. Also, about my first sentence, what I meant by that is if we use a secondary sources, which we should use where possible, the primary source of the info they got it from should be FX/Ryan Murphy etc. --TedEdwards 14:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Where in the Radio Times source does it make mention of this official source? You stated that secondary sources that make attributions to primary sources are fine, as long as they make those attributions. I'm not sure I can see this in the RT source... But then you say even though they haven't actually provided a primary source. This is very conflicting. Do they have to provide one or not? You're saying RT doesn't have to, but the other two do. Based on what? By that same train of thought, multiple sources state ten episodes, so using WP:IAR on WP:OR, we can use those sources. IAR rules! -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

RT obviously got the info from the BBC, as I found a primary source from the BBC (even thought strictly speaking RT doesn't cite it). In an ideal world, all secondary source would cite their primary sources, but in RT's case, it's obvious that the BBC is the uncited primary source, and I found a page confirming it from the BBC (i.e. the primary source). These sources you're using should be getting there info from FX/Ryan Murphy etc., but there is no evidence to suggest that FX has ever confirmed it, and therefore there isn't a primary source, so secondary sources on the matter can't exist. So to answer your question, secondary sources should cite primary sources, but we can "get away" (i.e. not the best situation) with using RT in this instance because there is a primary source. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the other two sources, as there is no primary source. --TedEdwards 14:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You say "obviously", but how do you know? The BBC cite could have been created after the RT source; the RT source was posted the same day as the episode's airing, the BBC source could have been created days, weeks later, so in that case, where did RT get it from then? Isn't using the term "obviously" WP:OR? They "should be" getting it from them (apparently), but I think WP:IAR applies here (as it's already been cited before in this discussion), so the sources can be used. Easy. Why wasn't this "getting away" business in the first reply? I'm not seeing this in any of these "obviously"-, "should be"- or "get away"-like statements in the WP:OR sections...

Looking through the sources in the 1984 articles... The source about Evan not returning doesn't site FX or Murphy. Nor does the source about the influence from classic horror slasher films. Deadline's source on Sarah Paulsen just says "Deadline has heard" and "we understand". Looks like there's a bit needed to be removed! -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

1) A statement by Evan is the primary source, and is clearly cited by the secondary source (and I have been saying FX/Ryan Murphy etc.) and 2) there is a lot of contradiction over Sarah, so I need to sort that out. I haven't looked closely at the sources about the influence for 1984, but I hope to do so soon.

In the case of RT, their info does not contradict the BBC, so it's fine (though the circumstances of not mentioning the primary source is not ideal). As I've said before, a secondary source cannot exist without a primary source. Therefore, unless a primary source regarding the number of episodes can be found, the particular sentences on Entertainment Weekly and Elle.com are not secondary sources. Therefore they cannot be used. Also I did use the phrase "get away" in my first reply. --TedEdwards 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

But the statement isn't by FX/Ryan Murphy. "etc" doesn't specify who can and cannot be primary sources. And noted about Sarah; I'll tag the content. I'm still not seeing in WP:SECONDARY where it says a primary source must be present. Yes, there's the "author's thinking" bit and all, but that's not a statement that they must be present.

Now, a much bigger issue about primary and secondary sources is the article Doctor Who (series 12). Good lord! I think the only content endorsed by the BBC (the only primary source acceptable for a series by the BBC) is the fact that it's filming, and that it's airing in 2020. All the filming and casting stuff, definitely not. Not even the directors. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Actors can easily be the primary sources about themselves, so the CVs and interviews with them are perfectly acceptable primary sources. Also, if a primary source is dubious if used directly on Wikipedia, a reliable secondary source can prove that particular primary source's reliablilty (as long as the secondary source is used).

Also set photos (from reliable sources) revealing info about something would be acceptable sources if they came from reliable publishers (and the publisher of the photos would be the primary source). So that's one instance where a primary source talking about a series is a third party to the series. Probably should have said that earlier tbh.
As I've said before secondary sources cannot exist without primary sources, otherwise what would they be secondary to (from WP:OR, [Secondary sources] rely on primary sources for their material)? So for a secondary source to be used, you should determine if there is a primary source (hopefully it's cited, but can be found otherwise). So, for the 10 episodes claims on a few sources, a list of primary sources we could use to show that we're using a secondary source are FX and Murphy, or maybe leaked documents published by reputable sources, or mentions by the cast or crew. --TedEdwards 13:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but I have further confirmation from another experienced editor that the ten-episode sources previously used in the AHS LoE article are acceptable to use in the article, and that secondary sources don't need a primary source to back them up. I'll restore them later. Thanks again! -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Radiphus (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hey, Ted. I recalled your edits to the GoT articles, removing the images based on NFCC. Do you think we should do the same for the Doctor Who episode articles? Case in point, the two most recent episode articles (Spyfall (Doctor Who), Orphan 55) include promo pictures which are just of guest cast, and that's it. I think this is the case for most of the revived era episodes; it could very well be the case for the classic era episodes as well. Kerblam! recently had its image removed as well, based on the same policy. Should we start removing those? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex

I believe what must happen is that screenshots and posters should not be the default for articles, and only used sparingly if it really increases understanding of the episode to respect commerical oppurtunites. In my view, most posters don't increasing understanding enough to meet WP:NFCC#8, as images must increase understanding of the subject of the article, and I think most posters only increase understanding of the poster.

A good image to keep would be the one for Under the Lake, as I don't think there is any other way (including through free images) of showing what the ghosts look like as they are CGI, so that image increases understanding of the episode. However the image for Before the Flood (Doctor Who) I think should be removed, because there is a free image of the Fisher King elsewhere in the article (taken at a DW exhibtion), so I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#1 (I think applies to quite a lot of episodes)

If a screenshot can be sourced by secondary sources as showing an iconic moment e.g. The Daleks, Spearhead from Space, they will likely meet NFCC, particularly #8.

To summarize then, I think posters should not be used unless the poster increases understanding of the episode in someway. --TedEdwards 20:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 Just checking you've seen this. --TedEdwards 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I did, thanks. I'm just thinking on how the best way to proceed would be. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If I were you, I would do one season at a time, which means there wouldn't be as much a risk of disruptive editing/huge backlash if your edits are reverted or contested (I regret not doing this for GoT; there I thought people might revert on the grounds of "other GoT articles have pictures, why shouldn't this one", but now I realize that argument can be shut down pretty easily). I'm very confident that you're able to determine if an image meets NFCC, particularly #8. As I'm fairly busy ATM, I won't be able to remove any images, and I might not be able to reply to you promptly. Also, as this reply isn't very prompt, I have pinged you ​. --TedEdwards 10:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

UK Coronavirus numbers

Hi, what is wrong with the figures? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim: The number of deaths per day don't add up to the cumulative number of deaths. --TedEdwards 20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example? It's probably a simple mistake Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The total number of deaths on March 16 was 55. According to the table, on March 17, there were 16 new deaths, and the new total number of deaths was 60, which is incorrect as 55+16 does not equal 60. There are more errors like this, but unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to find the correct numbers. --TedEdwards 00:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll look through the table and correct where I can. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's a bit of a mess. I've corrected the deaths but I'll need to figure out how to get the daily numbers for the NHS regions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Advice on how to proceed?

Hi again!

I'm sorry to bother you! I don't know how to proceed with this issue and would like your advice if you'd be willing to offer your thoughts.

In regard to the wording discussed for The IronThrone (Game of Thrones) that we had discussed in July and some of the changes you reverted that same month, some of these edits were changed back by the original editor. I left a note on their talk page in case they missed any discussion, reverts, or have any issues. In the case where they may not be very responsive, can you advise on how to proceed? Three issues I have is that 1) the detail that Daenerys had destroyed the city after it surrendered was removed, which I think is perhaps a key detail, 2) the wording that Jon pretended to reaffirm his fealty (because people have interpreted his final words to her in a variety of ways and it's not confirmed to be a pretense, I think it may be best to describe what happened on screen ie. 'Jon reaffirms his fealty to[...]'?), and 3) the change of 'Jon's love' back to 'their love' per the original edit. This isn't a huge issue but I think the wording 'their love' might be a bit ambiguous in describing whose love is being referred to if a reader is not familiar with the story/episode. 'Jon's love' might be a tad more accurate since Tyrion is arguing that despite Jon's love for Daenerys, it is his duty to kill her, perhaps helping to illustrate the conflict for the character. What are your thoughts?

I wanted to leave this on your talk page since some of this had already been discussed between us and I'm not sure how to proceed because I'm still relatively inexperienced and trying to be careful. I'm sorry if it doesn't belong here. I'd be happy to move this if this is not the right place and should be taken to the article's discussion.

Thanks! Anatashala (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to leave another note. I think I found what I needed here and will follow that procedure to be safe (there's no dispute currently but to avoid one, suggestions for a talk page discussion, notification, and allowing at least a week to respond to discussion requests all sound good) :) If you'd like to offer your thoughts, I can notify you if you wish! Thanks! And sorry for leaving these messages and cluttering up your talk page. I'm trying not to step on any toes but in doing so, I'm probably stepping on toes and being kind of a bother.

Anatashala (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anatashala

Sorry I forgot to respond here, I was too busy when you sent your first message, and then I forgot about it once I wasn't busy. The essay you've cited seems to be a good course of action to follow. Also, if I can, I will attempt to help out with the situation.

--TedEdwards 17:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for reading all this! There's no rush! And I'm sorry for the serial tweaking of my messages.

I'll start a request for discussion later this week or next to allow enough time in between the first note and discussion request as I realize the other editor may be busy and need time to respond. Would you like to be pinged on the article's talk page? Thanks again!

Anatashala (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I started the discussion for these changes here if you'd like to take part. Thanks!

Anatashala (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Width of graphs

Hi Ted. I don't really care, but these graphs are indeed too wide. I have quite a big screen (17'') and they even go out of mine (way to the right). This width setting is way beyond most of what can be seen on Wikipedia in general, where I almost never encounter this kind of formatting issue. Keep reverting if you wish, but I think about 95% of the readership is having trouble with your settings. Have a nice day anyway, there are some more important things to deal with or argue about... You also erased the number of new deaths by the way (sourced from the BBC). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र:The number of deaths you put in was only for England. --TedEdwards 15:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)