Talk:The Climb (Game of Thrones): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:37, 19 August 2014

A Song of Ice and Fire Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Start‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Precedent for GEOS as a source

GEOS has a history of use on Wikipedia as a source for straight numerical facts and broadcast statistics:

Bad Timing (Farscape episode)

Good Night (The Simpsons short)

Stargate SG-1 (season 1)

And those are just three. While I would put the viewer-contributed opinions housed on GEOS in the same category as, say, comments on an article, the straight facts provided in the GEOS episode descriptions meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Here is a link to the FAQ and history of the website.[1] [2] Here is its page on the Game of Thrones series. [3] You will notice that contributing content to GEOS is not like contributing content to Wikipedia or IMDB. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS…is that your argument here? Because if you look at the lower left corner of the website, it identifies itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run". It is by definition unusable as a source. Sorry; I was excited by the usefulness presented by the infograph. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's written by volunteers doesn't make it unreliable. The part that random people sign in to add are the survey responses, and that's not what's cited here.

If unreliability is really the issue, there's always the novel itself. I'll put in the time if I have a reason to think you wouldn't just come up with yet another excuse to hit the delete button, as I have on other articles.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem to apply here, no. That policy is about article deletion and the inclusion of information. I'm talking about the credibility of a source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-adding a contentious source during the discussion. Re-add it after the discussion when there's a consensus for it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the source is reliable. Also see WP:BURDEN and WP:QS. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a little hard to do that when I get the impression that JS or yourself would dismiss anything on any excuse. This is like dismissing an article because the comments are unreliable. I didn't cite the comments; I cited the content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you found sources that met the standards of what an encyclopedia requires rather than the standards of a blog. It would also help if you start from sources and reflect what they have to say rather than starting from a thesis and trying to find sources that support your thesis. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should be treated as such when writing articles. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, DQ, is that there seems to be a big gap between meeting Wikipedia's standards and meeting yours. Don't disown your own views by pretending they're "what an encyclopedia requires." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Oathkeeper

There's an RS RfC on the Oathkeeper talk page. Participation (and fresh voices) would be welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 ::::Well it's a little hard to do that when I get the impression that JS or yourself would dismiss anything on any excuse. This is like dismissing an article because the comments are unreliable.  I didn't cite the comments; I cited the content. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 :::::It would help if you found sources that met the standards of what an encyclopedia requires rather than the standards of a blog. It would also help if you start from sources and reflect what they have to say rather than starting from a thesis and trying to find sources that support your thesis. An encyclopedia is a [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary source]] and should be treated as such when writing articles. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
+::::::The problem, DQ, is that there seems to be a big gap between meeting Wikipedia's standards and meeting yours.  Don't disown your own views by pretending they're "what an encyclopedia requires." [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 == RfC on Oathkeeper ==