User talk:TedEdwards/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Day

I'm not understanding from your comments, what the concern is to adding the word "Day" to the text "traditional annual Christmas special". In some parts of the world, Christmas Specials are broadcast for weeks, starting in November! - I don't know how many times How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (TV special) and Frosty the Snowman (film) have already aired here - and it's only December 9! The Doctor Who tradition was always a Christmas DAY special. Perhaps in some places, they only have Christmas specials on Christmas Day - but that's not true anywhere. Simply adding the word "Day" makes the whole thing clearer and more universal. 16:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nfitz: The problem is that the special is not a Christmas special, it is a New Year special according to reliable sources. And in the UK, Christmas specials don't have to be broadcast on Christmas day; I noticed Shrek the Halls was on this morning. But Shrek the Halls is sourced as a Christmas special, and Resolution is very definitely not sourced as a Christmas special, as it has been souced to be a New Year special instead, in leiu of a Christmas special. Not every program broadcast on or around Christmas is a Christmas special; in fact a few editors had a discussion about if classic episodes that were shown on Christmas or New Years day were specials here. And adding day does not make it clearer, it could in fact make it less clear as it could imply that Resolution is a Christmas special, just broadcast on New Year's day. So to be clear, Resolution is not a Christmas special; it is a New Year special. TedEdwards 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How is that related to my edit? I simply added "Day". Currently the text says "New Year's Day special" and "Christmas special". Surely it should either be "New Year's special" and "Christmas special" or "New Year's Day special" and "Christmas Day special". (not relevant to this, but offhand, "The End of Time part 1" didn't strike me as particularly Christmasy, nor did the previous New Year's Day special "The End of Time part 2" strike me as particularly New Yearsy. There was also the "The Waters of Mars" that was aired at the beginning of the Christmas special season in November 2009, and seemed to be more Christmasy than either!). Nfitz (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No matter the plot, both parts of the End of Time were sourced as a Christmas/New Year specials. And the Water of Mars was not sourced as a Christmas specials at all. And it's similar here, Resolution is sourced as not being a Christmas specials and instead being a New Year's special, so it's a New Year special, unlike what you said in your first edit summary. I also believe I addressed the word day in my reply; read again. btw I've changed the lede slightly so it says "New Year's special broadcast on 1 January 2019". TedEdwards 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay - I guess that makes sense, and I've edited the Christmas special bit in a similar manner. However I'm concerned that the net effect of this is we now have a sentence that says:

The series will be preceded by a New Year's special episode broadcast on 1 January 2019, in lieu of the traditional annual Christmas special aired on Christmas Day.

rather than a much simpler

The series will be preceded by a New Year's Day special in lieu of the traditional annual Christmas Day special.

Surely we should strive for the simplest sentence structures that convey the same meaning. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Latest pinging

Hi TedEdwards,
Is possible for you to remove pinging me on Alex 21's Talk page? I prefer not be ping on his Talk page. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Oh, I didn't realize there was a problem. I've removed the link to your userpage on his talk page. Sorry about that. --TedEdwards 01:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you can do that, it would be great. Thank you. I really appreciate it. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Sorry, I thought I already removed the link when I last posted. I've definitely done it this time. Happy editing! --TedEdwards 01:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I just don't want to cause any trouble for myself. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welcome to Briarcliff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Hi. I think you probably need to request a move for Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) as well, because it's named after a place in the GoT universe: Beyond the Wall. Keivan.f^Talk 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Game-of-Thrones-S06-E08-No-One.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Re Change UK, my apologies for the collateral damage! I clearly misread you as saying you had done it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Nah, no problem mate. --TedEdwards 17:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the Game of Thrones plot summaries are fantastic just as they are

I am currently binge watching all of Game of Thrones, having never watched a single episode until this year. I have found the episode plot summaries on Wikipedia to be invaluable in helping me understand what happened in each episode. In my personal experience, they contain the perfect level of detail to understand each episode, and I disagree that they're too long and detailed. Skolmann (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Skolmann: You totally misunderstand the purpose of them. They are called summaries because they summarize the plot, and as MOS:TVPLOT explains, even if you ignore the 400 word limit, they are designed only to ensure other sections of the article make sense readers who haven't seen the episode, only to summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it. Therefore they are too long, and there is a suggested 400 word limit. Overlong plots are unencyclopedic, and actually the readers get less infomation from long plots, as readers (i.e. all humans) have limited attention spans. --TedEdwards 14:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing Game of Thrones episodic pictures

Hi, I'm reaching out in regards to you removing the infobox images from each episode's page of Game of Thrones. Is there any consensus behind this decision that I am missing? I tried to look for some but couldn't find any. It just appears as though you are picking and choosing yourself which ones can stay, and then revert anytime someone disagrees. I, for one, who has watched the series repeatedly, find them extremely useful because just the quick image helps me associate which episode I'm looking at, and I'm sure many other users agree. In the short amount of time that they have been gone, navigating episodes is very frustrating. I am a long time lurker on Wikipedia without an account, and felt the need to make one purely for this issue. At the very least, this should be discussed before removing which ones you see fit. WP:NFCC#8 is relatively subjective, and should be given the opportunity for consensus to dictate the correct measure. One user's interpretation doesn't really seem right, but if a consensus of editors agree, I'm more than okay with that. Plus your explanations on your User:TedEdwards/Game of Thrones image removal page are largely just your subjective takes on it (I don't think Benjen is a major enough character to need a photo of him, Image for sake of it, etc.) and you only seem to keep ones where editors argue it on the talk page. I'd recommend posting on a central location like Wikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire to try and get some general consensus on these removals. I'm happy to do it myself if you are not up for it. Again, if there was a discussion on this and I missed it, I apologize. Thanks. --Templeowls17 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Templeowls17: T.b.h. I find it a bit strange that a "lurker" (assuming that means someone who hasn't edited) seems to know about WP:NFCC, WP:CONSENSUS, the ASoIaF Wikiproject and how to sign posts correctly. New users (never mind readers) don't tend to know about these things, or know about user talk pages (where your first edit was). Is there an explanation for how you know this? --TedEdwards 17:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm a former editor, however I forgot my login. That being said, I don't think the point here is trying to figure who I am or being suspicious of my editing knowledge. The point is try and get some consensus on the widespread changes you've made to all the articles. I'm happy to post something somewhere, or if you'd like to, by all means. If consensus dictates these changes are applicable, I'm more than okay with that. But the explanations you give on your subpage are wildly subjective on further analysis. thx --Templeowls17 (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're a former editor, why not say you were one, rather than try to imply you were just a reader who's never edited before? It's not exactly dark knowledge that must never be known. There has been a discussion that's gone quiet at Talk:Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones), with a link to that from Talk:Game of Thrones. --TedEdwards 18:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies then; I haven't edited in probably close to a decade and simply read articles these days. Lurker seems more appropriate. Irregardless, I will get a broader discussion going on this so that we can have a central place to generate some much-needed feedback. Thx Templeowls17 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, just tell me where the discussion is. --TedEdwards 18:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have posted it on here. Thx Templeowls17 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)