User talk:TedEdwards/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Game of Thrones title sequence

It has been discussed before, start a new discussion if you wish, but get a consensus first. Hzh (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who episode infobox images

Just to avoid issues, the cases where the BBC has actually put out a poster-like image to brand the episode meets the allowance for NFC use as outlined at WP:NFCI#1. Most of the problem with episode images in general is that editors pick a random image that they file represents the episode but do not justify it with any text or commentary, so for all purposes, it is a random screenshot, and thus wholly unallowed within NFCC. But if there is sourced discussion of a carefully selected episode image (such as A Town Called Mercy where the screenshot is used to emphasis the makeup/prostetic job that is discussed in depth in the text) as to meet NFCC#8, or where there is official branding of the episode like these posters from the BBC to meet NFCI#1, that's acceptable. --Masem (t) 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: While I can see that the poster do indeed meet #1, it's obvious they do. But (as you clearly know) they must meet all ten criteria. So to elaborate on why I felt the posters didn't meet #8: #8 talks about how NFC must increase "understanding of the article topic, the topic referring to the subject of the article, and the posters do not increase understanding significantly as they don't add information regarding reception, filming, production etc. (N.B. as I haven't read the policy for a while (but knew what was allowed under it), I didn't realize my edit summaries appeared to quote it, and thus explain nothing. I apologize for this.).

@MarnetteD: You say in you edit summaries actually it does since these are used to illustrate the episode and what its plot is about. Surely the plot section can explain what the plot's about, with some help from the lede? Also, I don't think they would help describe the plot to someone who doesn't know the rough plot of the episode beforehand. Could you also explain what "illustrat[ing] the episode" means? --TedEdwards 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

What I meant was not the 10 criteria of NFCC themselves, but that the generalized accepted points of WP:NFCI (typically allowed uses of images) which are cases where generally all 10 points of NFCC (or more specifically NFCC#1, #3, and #8) will be met, though all other factors still must be considered. Just as we have film posters to use for infoboxes under NFCI#1 as an implicit allowance for marketing and branding, such poster images here on the Doctor Who episodes are doing the same thing. --Masem (t) 00:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as how they were created to market and illustrate the episode before they aired in the UK it is hard to see how they don't do the same for readers of the articles. MarnetteD|Talk 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the posters marketing the episode, this is obviously true, but Wikipedia is not here to market anything. About them illustrating the episode, I still don't understand what that means. Also in several cases for series 7, the episode's title gives the same or more information as the poster (e.g. Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS, Asylum of the Daleks)

Apologies for confusing NFCC and NFCI. However NFCI is governed by NFCC. NFCI is a list of suggestions of images that often meet NFCC, as I think you alluded to. I think there's also a distinction between film posters and these posters in that films posters are publicized far more prominently than the Doctor Who posters were, e.g. film posters tend to be shown on billboards, and displayed throughout public spaces. --TedEdwards 12:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bronn (character) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bronn (character) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronn (character) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Prisencolin (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Apology

I confused you with Tartan457 at the Trump talk page. I am sorry. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: No problem, thanks for the apology. --TedEdwards 16:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Whether your edits were acceptable or not is not a matter concerning me, and therefore does not need to discussed on my talk page. I'm sure SPECIFICO did not intentionally misspell your nickname, so there is no reason to call them out on it. --TedEdwards 16:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

March 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 4

The day isn't over yet. However, given that presidents are sworn in at noon Eastern, I'll let the edit stand.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Ryan-Mark Parsons Fellowship

Hello Ted! I've seen your recent edit on Parsons re: Fellowship. You might need to remove the 'FRSA' suffix from the main paragraph. Also, is there a way you tracked the Fellowship? I assume at one point the subject was a Fellow, for example, what if he re-joins? Good job on picking-up on this. JPA24 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

JOBTITLES

You are interpreting MOS:JOBTITLES incorrectly. Many editors (though not a majority) take issue with that guideline, but none to my knowledge have ever advanced the interpretation that you’re trying to put forward. See, e.g., this attempt to modify the guideline to exempt UK political offices, which nonetheless acknowledges that, as the guideline currently stands, it requires these titles to be lowercase. If you wish to change the guideline, you can try to obtain consensus for that change at MOS talk. But as it currently stands, these titles are lowercase. Wallnot (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Think I see the source of your mistake now. The guideline states a title is capitalized when it “is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office”—not when it can be used that way. Under your reading, every title would always be capitalized, because every title can be used as a substitute for the name of the officeholder during their time in office. Under the correct interpretation, however, such titles are capitalized only when they are actually used to refer to the specific person, which they are not in the ledes of the articles you edited. Hope that helps. Wallnot (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wallnot: Sorry yes I did misinterpret it what the guideline says somewhat (please note I'm British and am therefore prone to understatement). So Liz Truss became Foreign Secretary I think is correct, but Liz Truss became the Foreign Secretary isn't, just because of the definite article. That said, I do find it a bit strange as a result that until recently most articles failed to abide by this guideline in their ledes, especially because guidelines are decided by consensus... --TedEdwards 22:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)