User talk:MichaelMaggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived.

Archived Talk pages: 1 | 2 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016

Subscriptions are at User talk:MichaelMaggs/Subscriptions

Evolution of Father Christmas[edit]

This page [1] has interesting images taken from 'A Book of Christmas' (1836), showing a bearded, robed Christmas in the frontispiece crowned with holly, and a good illustration of a contemporary (judging by audience) mummers' play with a holly-crowned bearded man who is evidently the Father Christmas character. RLamb (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on my list of sources to be added. I've just bought a few second-hand books which I think will help, as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And Then There Were None[edit]

I saw your citation request at And Then There Were None. Personally, I would think that the implicit authoritative source for what is shown in a well-known recent television show is simply the show itself. Anyone can watch it and verify whether it depicts what the article says it depicts. (Similarly, I don't think we need to cite a source when describing the content of And Then There Were None itself – anyone can get the book and read it to see what it says.) Do you disagree with that? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's a little more to it than that. In my view it's not enough to assert as the basis for inclusion that a TV show or other cultural reference is 'well known'. It should have sources establishing its significance with reference to the subject matter of the article, and supporting its claim to be included. In the absence of a source, we have no more than mere existence and one editor's personal opinion that the show is significant enough to include. The TV show can act as its own source for what it includes (eg the characters and plotline) but can't serve to establish its own significance. Likewise, the book can serve as its own source for details of the plot, but must still have external references establishing its notability. If you look at the paragraphs immediately above the new one, you'll see that they all include citations (or in some cases are tagged to indicate that required citations are missing). Hope that makes sense. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
O.K., I guess I can't really disagree with the idea that a source is needed to establish the significance, although that seems like a higher standard than what is typical on Wikipedia, and although it may often be possible to find a source to cite even when some connection is not really worth mentioning (which reminds me of this). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Very nice - I hadn't seen that before. All too true! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for restoring my faith in Father Christmas. Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)