LooksGreatInATurtleNeck

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LooksGreatInATurtleNeck! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Important message

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

—PaleoNeonate – 18:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel you need to read wp:bludgeon. There comes a point when arguing your case becomes problomatic.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Slatersteven!

I'm sorry, isn't that section for talking through a problem to reach a consensus?

You mean I'm supposed to say nothing to argue my case?

That seems rather against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia surely?

If I was just meant to come before a board & shut my mouth, seems a bit of a waste of time to post there at all.

Sorry, confused by what you're saying.

Wow, this place really isn't the friendliest is it?

Take care,

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but once its clear consensus is against you its time to drop it. The problem is that you are not listening to what you are being told, but rather trying to find ways to continue to claim you are right. By the way, if we were not being friendly this would have been a formal warning, and not just saying you need to read our rules. If you are acting in a way that seems contrary to our policies, of course, we have to tell you, before some admin blocks you, how else will you learn? What I am telling you is that right now you are heading down a path that may lead to a block for being wp:disruptive, as you might have started to become a time sink, being told the same thing by multiple editors and trying to find a way around it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

When many editors with much much more experience than you disagree with an opinion only you hold about long-standing wiki policies, perhaps the issue is that there is not much case to argue. It is not that you shouldn't have brought up the issue (you are encouraged to do so), but rather than arguing endlessly won't convince anyone more than what you already have said. At some point, it is better just to back away from the discussion rather than arguing just for the sake of it. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Slatersteven!

I most certainly am listening to what is being said to me in that section, I'm a little annoyed for you to say otherwise.

I've been polite in all my responses there, I was addressing the points raised.

My understanding was that place was where we discussed a problem if we had one, there had only been a handful of replies & at no point did a reply back seem unwarranted.

Of course I think I'm right on this issue, I'd not have wasted anyone's time if I thought I was wrong.

I can certainly see that everyone there is against my view, so be it.

But I don't think, if you look at what I said there, that any of it was discourteous.

How is any of what I said there disruptive?

My sole actions up to this point have been to add information to articles.

When challenged on the Reference I tried talking to the Editor responsible.

Again I was polite but did disagree with their stance.

I re-thought the two deleted references with their brief critique in mind & one seems to be fine by them now.

Only that one minor Reference caused a clash between us & when they instructed me to take it before the panel on that talk page I did so.

I'm honestly not seeing anything disruptive on my part here.

The most annoyed I've gotten was in reply to the original Editor's rather terse dealings with me but even then I kept it polite, even wishing them happy holiday seasons at one point!

I've seen the angry responses on that Editor's Talk page, far more heated than anything I've said to them, so I know I'm not alone in having problems with them.

It's very offensive, based on me just politely arguing my case, as I thought was the point, to call me a "time sink".

If the point of that page is not to argue the point brought before the panel then perhaps there should be some mention of it or a set limit to how many replies.

Sorry, I'm still very hurt by your tone, look at my brief work here & it's all been additions & fixing broken links in References. I honestly don't think I deserve how you've spoken to me.

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there A._C._Santacruz

I don't think it's fair to say I argued it endlessly, I made a few replies to the point raised, politely too.

My understanding was that was a debating arena.

Obviously the people there will think the opposite to my initial suggestion, they helped make the rule in the first place.

I assumed the point was to hear what a counter argument would be. Again I don't see how a few replies to new arguments against my suggestion was disruptive or any where near endless.

Thanks for taking time to reply!

LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, just a comment in relation to Just been contacted with the implication I'm not supposed to reply back to these to make my case so guess that's it.:(" that I have just noticed at RSN and of {{ds/alert}} that I used above to generate the message, in case it's related. The message is for everyone who edits biographies (and I have received one before too). If wanted, the {{ds/aware}} template can also be used to acknowledge these messages and avoid receiving them (they are renewable every 12 months). I also forgot to mention at RSN, but for biographies there is also WP:BLPRS that is a bit stricter than only WP:RS. And asking for advice at RSN was fine, I suggest to just wait for community input and to respect the consensus. —PaleoNeonate – 21:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello PaleoNeonate! Thanks for clarifying. It wasn't that generated message but Slatersteven effectively telling me not to argue my case & then telling me I'd be blocked for disruptive behavior that made me stop responding at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. :( " And asking for advice at RSN was fine, I suggest to just wait for community input and to respect the consensus." Thank-you, that was my understanding of how it worked & I see others also argue their case. Not sure why an Editor felt the need to come to my Talk to shut me down. I was polite in responding & simply wanted to address points raised against my case. Debate is normally seen as good. When suggesting a change to the status quo one normally has to listen to the arguments for & then respond with reasons against. I was certainly waiting for a consensus & willing to accept the result after a discussion. I do feel it's a bit of an echo chamber there as only those Editors already deeply involved in Reliable sources/Noticeboard seem to respond, the same people that presumable decided the policy in the first place. :( Thanks again for responding. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I warned you about a policy which meant that if you continued to argue every point might be seen as wp:disruptive, in fact nowhere did I tell you to stop. I told you to be careful. I will also now inform you of wp:battleground, no you do not fight your corner, again this is a warning about moderating your behavuior so it is not seen as violating that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Slatersteven! Come off it, your first post on this talk page was clearly telling me not to continue making my case over in Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I can't see how it can be taken in any other way. I don't fight my corner in that discussion?! It's a discussion! The other Editors are allowed to fight their corner in the discussion but I am not? That's not a debate, it's a beat down. I'm not attacking you but you keep coming to my Talk page to wag your finger. If you want to avoid a battle perhaps you should examine your behavior. I'll inform you of Please do not bite the newcomers. I've been polite & not attacked anyone, just because you don't agree with my point in Reliable sources/Noticeboard does not mean I'm disruptive. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Indenting

Hello, I just wanted to comment on the use of ":" colons for indenting. You ought not keep using the colons for each line when you write a comment on a talk page. Just do it once and the text will automatically wrap with line breaks at the same amount of indentation. To illustrate, I will paste some text (from a random article) below this. I will triple indent it with ":::" three colons and you can see how it automatically wraps.

Dhoby Ghaut station was part of the early plans for the original MRT network since 1982. It was constructed as part of Phase I of the MRT network which was completed in 1987. Following the network's operational split, the station has been served by the North South line since 1989. To construct the North East line platforms, which were completed in 2003, the Stamford Canal had to be diverted while excavating through part of Mount Sophia. The Circle line platforms opened in 2010 along with Stages 1 and 2 of the line. The only triple-line MRT interchange station in Singapore, Dhoby Ghaut station is one of the deepest and largest stations with five basement levels. Its deepest point is at 28 metres (92 ft) below ground. The station features many forms of artworks, three of them under the Art-in-Transit scheme in the North East line and Circle line stations, a pair of Art Seats at the Circle line platforms and an art piece above the North South line platforms.

So just a single use of the triple colon. I noticed some users were annoyed with the way you were doing this manually. Hope that helps, cheers, --SVTCobra 19:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there SVTCobra! Thank-you for your kindness. I'm very new here & am used to VBulletin style forums. I've very, very bad eyesight so the jumbled text messages are problematic for me to read, which is why I like to break them up into separate lines. That necessitated an indent for each line. I was unaware until the angry response that it offended people. :( I've had to struggle to learn all the new ways of navigating this place. I don't think it will be an issue in the future as I don't seem welcome here all round. Again thanks for taking the time to calmly, politely reach out & help someone. I sincerely appreciate it. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

LGIATN, about discussing on WP talkpages. If you go here : Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable a thingie called "Discussion tools", you will get a "reply" link at the end of each comment, and using that both indents correctly and signs. There's also a button (little guy with a +) for easy WP:PINGing. There may be other stuff in the preferences you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)! Thank-you so much, that is so much easier! It's been terrible having to try & respond to individuals without this, to the point I wonder why it isn't the default. So nice to see there are helpful people here who don't threaten & link to long dense rule pages but rather just offer a helping hand. Thank-you for taking time to explain. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Making it default is the plan, I think, but it hasn't happened yet. It seems to avoid WP:Edit conflicts as well, which is a big bonus on talkpages with a lot of traffic. To quote a journalist, "Knowledge production, at least in the Wikipedia sense, is part collaboration and part combat." The combat part is often less fun, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Would definitely make entry for newer users smoother if it was made default, so I hope they do decide to. The live preview is also really nice. I actually picked up the article editing quickly, it was responding to talk points that has been brutal. "It seems to avoid WP:Edit conflicts as well, which is a big bonus on talkpages with a lot of traffic." Oh my yes, I encountered that in my recent discussion post in Reliable sources/Noticeboard, new posts would come in as I was trying to post my reply, making it an even less enjoyable experience. This Reply tip of yours would have helped so much. Many thanks again for pointing it out to me. "Knowledge production, at least in the Wikipedia sense, is part collaboration and part combat." Oh my yes that's proven sadly true for me. :( I came for the collaborative but had, up until you & SVTCobra reached out helping hands, encountered only the combative. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC

Answering questions

Hello TurtleNeck! I'd just like to advise you to not answer questions on the Teahouse unless you are completely sure you know the correct answer to the user's question. The Teahouse is often where new users ask questions regarding editing Wikipedia and considering you are a new user yourself (your account is only 1 month old) it would be better for you to be asking questions rather than answering them, as if a new user receives a wrong answer but doesn't know the answer is wrong then that may lead to some issues. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Blaze Wolf! Sorry, which answer that I gave was wrong? I just recently helped someone at the Teahouse with the correct answer to posting a table of contents on the left. Before that I gave the correct answer to what the "abc" meant on References (another member gave an identical answer at the same time I posted mine). I've taken great care to only answer things that I know to be right. I note that the answer that another more experienced Editor gave (in good faith) about contacting via Email was wrong. So how long an Editor has been here is not a guarantee they are correct. I even checked the Teahouse page about answering questions & it suggests answering a few before requesting being a host. Boy, being warned off from helping people now. :( I actually had the feeling this would happen but I dismissed it as being too negative about Wikipedia, guess I should have gone with my gut instincts. :( Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any of your answers have been wrong so far. Apologies if it seemed that way. I didn't mean to intend it that way. I'm just simply suggesting for you to be cautious. When I first joined Wikipedia I was a bit over ambitious and answered questions on Teahouse when I didn't actually know the answer. If you want proof just check some of my earlier talk page archives. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Exchange

Firstly, an award isn't notable enough to be mentioned in our article at all unless it's an award that gets media coverage — so you do have to use media coverage to source award nominations, in order to demonstrate that the award is even notable enough to even be listed in the table in the first place. It's true that there have been examples of people using the Academy's own website in lieu of proper media coverage, but that doesn't mean it's standard and acceptable practice — it means those people did it wrong and such instances need to be replaced with reliable source coverage in real media when one sees it being done.

Secondly, the table has to link to our articles about the categories, at the titles where our articles about the categories are. The rule on here isn't that we have to precisely replicate the official name of the category, it's that we use the common name of the category.

Thirdly, if and when the film does win one or more of the awards, then we can split up the referencing so that the winners are sourced to an article about the winners while the nominees remain sourced to an article about the nominees. But for the time being, we don't need to deviate from standard format just because there might be a change in the future. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! Seems that if multiple Editors throughout Wikipedia think using Academy.ca as a Ref for the award is correct, isn't that a consensus that it is correct procedure? Certainly does not seem to be a harmful or in any way inaccurate Ref. To the second point, so you're advocating using Wikipedia's naming in one of their articles to override the name used in both References? Surely Wikipedia is not an accepted reliable source? You can link to those pages but leave the name as both references call them, would prevent confusion. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors routinely think we can source content in Wikipedia articles to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Amazon, IMDb or blogs. That doesn't mean there's a consensus that it's proper to do so — it means that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have no way to stop anyone from breaking our rules in advance of a bad edit. We can't stop someone from using a bad reference before they do it, we can only fix bad referencing after the fact, when somebody notices that bad referencing has been used. So the fact that something is happening doesn't automatically constitute a consensus that it's okay for it to be happening: it just constitutes stuff that needs to be fixed to properly comply with our reliable sourcing rules.

And you don't need two references for the same fact, either. If the preferred media reference already properly verifies the fact, then the Academy's website isn't necessary anymore as supplementary reverification of a fact that's already properly verified by the media source.

Wikipedia using a short title for an award category, instead of an excessively long official name, does not constitute using Wikipedia as a circular "reference" either. Our rule is WP:COMMONNAME, not "officialism for the sake of officialism". Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! "Wikipedia editors routinely think we can source content in Wikipedia articles to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify, Amazon, IMDb or blogs." Oh I understand that but in those cases there are specific rules in place to say why they should not be used or (like YouTube) the specific cases where they are & are not to be used. That does not apply to Academy.ca. In the case of Academy.ca you specifically said not to use it because it was self published. That did not properly apply here, which is why I called you on it. I'm not trying to trump you or anything nor do I want a fight but I've been careful to follow the guidlines so was surprised to see your removal of those sources for the stated reason. As to not needing two Refs for a fact, there is no rule saying you cannot have two Refs for a fact or even more. Indeed having two good Refs for a fact aids verifiability. There are even Editors that go around mass removing things if they are un-sourced, so it has proven beneficial to include at least two solid Refs. Had I only used the Academy.ca Ref for instance, you'd have removed it & could have pulled the whole Accolades table as being un-sourced. Again, no harm comes from having two good sources. I've tried my best to avoid butting heads here but so many seem to treat this like a full contact sport. Just trying to add facts & aid the spread of correct information. Thanks for taking time to reply. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Lea Carlson

Again, an Ontario Arts Council press release is not a reliable or notability-building source for the Ontario Arts Council's own awards. To turn any award into a notability claim for the recipient of the award, it has to be shown that the award is one that the media consider significant enough to cover as news — if an award lacks third party coverage in real media, and thus has to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published press releases, then it isn't a notable award at all by definition. A primary source is any content that's directly affiliated with the claim it's being used to support, at either end of the event chain — you seem to think that if A gives an award (or an award nomination) to B, then only B's self-published content would be a primary source, while A's self-published content would be perfectly acceptable sourcing to establish notability, but that's not the case. Both the recipient (Lea Carlson, The Exchange's producers) and the giver (the ACCT, the Ontario Arts Council) are primary sources that can't establish the notability of their own transaction from either end, and an award presentation has to have third-party coverage in real media in order to even be notable enough to mention in our articles at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! "you seem to think that if A gives an award (or an award nomination) to B, then only B's self-published content would be a primary source" Um, no. Never claimed that at all. Note I did not use that site I mentioned to you as a source for that award for that very reason. I specifically said that the info mentioned there, some light Bio info on the lady in question, may be of use if you are intending to expand her article here at Wikipedia. For example it mentions some of her work & other nominations. It was simply a friendly reach out to try & help out a fellow Editor working on what is currently a stub article. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake in your case again. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You literally said, in one of your messages on my talk page, that "The fact it is their site & self published would only be a negative if it was in an article about them, not someone else", so it's not at all true that you didn't claim it. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! I said that in response to your claim that Academy.ca could not be used as a Reference to verify that someone else had received a nomination from them. In that context, my statement is true. You could not use a Reference to Academy.ca for trying to prove something about Academy.ca, I totally agree with that, you seem to be conflating the two very different situations here. They can & are used as a Reference that other people have received a nomination for a Canadian Screen Award, as can be seen all over Wikipedia as a standard. Even on other pages that you traversed. I note you did not further challenge that fact once I pointed it out to you. So please take my quote in context rather than applying it to a totally separate topic. I never said any such thing in regards the use of that useful Lea Carlson info I mentioned to you. As I say, I mentioned that to you in hopes it would be useful info & possible Ref for pointing to as to the other info it mentions in the article. I thought it would make a nice "peace offering" to clear the air between us. Clearly I was mistaken to try in any way to be friendly. Clearly that is an alien concept here & is treated with suspicion & disgust. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not a different context at all, it's exactly what I was talking about: if the Academy gives an award or a nomination to a person, film or organization, then the Academy's own website is inherently a primary source for that claim. It doesn't matter whether you're using it in an article about the Academy itself, or an article about the person, film or organization who the Academy gave the award to — the Academy is directly affiliated with the claim being made, and is thus a primary source which cannot recursively demonstrate the notability of its own awards. The award is notable because it gets media coverage, not just because it exists, so the media coverage has to be used as the sourcing in order to demonstrate that the award is a notable one.

And like I already said earlier, yes, it's true that there are instances where the self-published website of an award organization (the Canadian Screen Awards, the Junos, etc.) has been improperly used as the source for its own award nominations or wins — but that's not because we have a consensus that that's acceptable, it's because in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have no mechanism to actually ensure that "anyone" is always doing things correctly or obeying the rules. Our rule against sourcing articles about actors to IMDb doesn't stop people from trying to source articles about actors to IMDb, our rule against sourcing articles about musicians to Spotify or YouTube doesn't stop people from trying to source articles about musicians to Spotify or YouTube, and on and so forth: we have no mechanism at all to prevent anybody from breaking a rule before they break the rule, and our only recourse we have is to notice and fix the rule breach after it's already been broken. So the fact that you can find instances where somebody has used the Academy's own website as sourcing for a Canadian Screen Award nomination or win doesn't mean we have a consensus that it's acceptable to do that — it means that somebody used a bad source, and it needs to be replaced with a proper one.

Also, I fail to see how I'm being "unfriendly" here: I haven't attacked you or called you names or anything, all I've done is politely explain why certain sources aren't appropriate for use. If not just blindly agreeing with everything you say is automatically "unfriendly", even though I've been polite all along, then what's the point in actually engaging in any discussion on Wikipedia at all? Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! I strongly disagree with you about using Academy.ca as a source for people being nominated for the award. I believe its wide use along with the fact it is not black-listed (unlike the other examples you keep mentioning) is a consensus that it is correct. Any other source like a magazine, even Variety, will have gotten their information from that site! Unlike IMDB or even Wikipedia it is not operated by anyone that cares to edit. It is not being Referenced to try and prove that the awards are notable, it is being referenced to prove the individual or film/TV show has gotten the award. I'm sorry but you are just wrong to keep asserting it can't be used in this way. Even with all that, that's why I also included the Variety Refs to back it up, though you even grumbled about using more than two Refs! I actually assumed we'd gotten past this yesterday but you keep returning to it without any actual proof there is a guideline, policy or even a consensus against its use in this way. Sorry, if you can't see that your responses have been a tad on the aggressive side, not sure we're on the same wavelength. I reach out the next day, in hopes to clear the air, with some useful info on a separate subject you are working on & it reignites this whole argument on using Academy.ca to show someone has been nominated. As for a discussion, it does not feel like you want a discussion, more that you are demanding things be your way because that's what you say. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely none of the other sites I mentioned are "blacklisted" at all. YouTube is not blacklisted, Spotify is not blacklisted, IMDb is not blacklisted, Amazon is not blacklisted, and on and so forth — it is entirely possible to use any of those sites as "referencing" without triggering the blacklist filter, but the fact that they're not blacklisted doesn't mean they're appropriate for use as sourcing.

I also don't know what distinction you think you're trying to draw with "It is not being Referenced to try and prove that the awards are notable, it is being referenced to prove the individual or film/TV show has gotten the award" — in order to establish that an award is notable enough to even be mentioned in the article about a film or an actor or a costume designer at all, it is necessary to establish that the award is one that gets media coverage, which is done by sourcing it to the media coverage. Any award that can't be sourced to media coverage, and instead requires you to lean on the awarding organization's own self-published website or press releases in lieu of real journalism, isn't notable enough by definition to even be mentioned in the recipient's article.

And I never said that the Academy's website was one that "anyone can edit" — I said that Wikipedia is a site that "anyone can edit". The problem with the Academy's website isn't that it might be wrong about stuff, it's that the Academy's website doesn't constitute evidence that their awards are notable enough to make their winners or nominees notable on that basis — it's the media coverage that proves that the CSAs are notable enough to warrant being documented in Wikipedia, not the Academy's own website.

And again: the fact that you can find evidence of the Academy's own self-published website being used that way does not constitute evidence that we have a consensus that it's acceptable to do that — it means people did stuff wrong that needs to be fixed with a more appropriately independent source, but their mistakes have to be noticed by somebody who's willing to take the time to locate a better source before they can be fixed. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! By blacklisted, I mean mentioned as unsuitable for use as a Reference at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. All of your examples, except Spotify, are listed there. So effectively black listed for Referencing. YouTube also listed there, though with the very important caveat (often overlooked) that it can be used as long as the uploaders are reliable (& thus also own the copyright). Academy.ca is notably not listed among the problematic sites to use for referencing (yes I realise that does not mean it's open season for any use). If it was I would understand more your insistence on not using it to prove a nomination or win. You still keep veering off into notability. Citing Academy.ca is not trying to prove notability of the award or the subject. It's being cited to prove the stated fact that said award nomination exists. So there is no issue with citing them for that, which is why most pages citing such awards will use the official award site. Like the Oscars with www.oscars.org. This is the standard convention used, I'm not making this up, have a look around & you will see. I don't think this widespread & perfectly reasonable behavior, that is not countered by a written rule, can be blithely written off as "it means people did stuff wrong that needs to be 'fixed'". You are going against the established way things are clearly done so surely the onus to prove you have backing for that is on you? It would also mean a massive re-ordering of how awards are referenced on film & celebrity articles as it is not only widespread but I'd call it the norm. Your standpoint seems head scratching to me. If the award in question was something no one had heard of, then I could understand your reasoning but the particular one in question is Canada's equivalent of the Oscars! Clearly we will not see eye to eye on this. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I keep harping on the notability issue is because the notability issue is inherent to whether the award even gets to be listed in the article at all. Our articles are only supposed to document nominations for or wins of awards that are notable (i.e. get media coverage), and are not supposed to document nominations for or wins of awards that are not notable (i.e. do not get media coverage). A film can win "best film" at 100 smalltown film festivals that get no media attention, but the lack of media attention means that those festival awards aren't notable enough to be listed in our article about that film — a film's article is only supposed to list notable awards, meaning awards that can be sourced to media coverage, and is not supposed to list awards that can't be sourced to media coverage and instead have to depend on primary sourcing. So that's why I keep discussing notability — because the notability or non-notability of the award, by virtue of the ability or inability to source it to third party journalistic reportage in media, is what determines whether the award is even allowed to be listed in the article in the first place.

It's not a question of where the media outlet did or didn't get their information from, either, so I don't know why you keep saying that. Media outlets always get all of their information about everything from the sources of that information — that's literally how newsgathering works. But information isn't automatically notable just because it's true — the question of whether the information is notable or not depends on whether journalists considered the information significant enough to treat it as a news story or not, and who they got their information from is not the issue. No matter who the original source of the information was, it's notable if journalists for real third party media have independently deemed the information significant enough to produce secondary source reportage about it as news, and not notable if journalists for real third party media have not independently deemed the information significant enough to produce secondary source reportage about it as news — notability does not vest in the fact per se, it vests in the extent to which independent third party journalists did or didn't consider the fact to be worth taking the time to report on as news, and an award can't be listed in the article at all if if isn't an award that journalists consider significant enough to follow up with third party journalism that treats the award nominations as newsworthy.

And I also don't know why you keep saying that the Academy's website is just there to prove that she received the nomination, when the fact that she received the nomination is already adequately proven by the media source. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! "The reason I keep harping on the notability issue is because the notability issue is inherent to whether the award even gets to be listed in the article at all." See I think you're onto a losing argument there, those awards are clearly notable, they are nationally broadcast industry high watermark awards. So trying to say this whole long drawn out argument is about fighting for notable award coverage only seems, weak at best. Not only is that my view, admittedly a small new Editor who can be brushed aside, but it's clearly the majority view of Editors in the entertainment field on Wikipedia. As already stated official award sites are cited on pretty much the majority of Celebs, Movies & TV in this manner. So unless you can convince all of them, seems moot to try to convince me. Consensus, whether you admit it or not, is against you. You are expressing your take on things, not the official & certainly not practiced convention with regards to using official award sites as Refs for nominations/wins. "And I also don't know why you keep saying that the Academy's website is just there to prove that she received the nomination, when the fact that she received the nomination is already adequately proven by the media source." Because many Editors obviously believe that the official award site, certainly in the case of Academy.ca or the Oscars, is a more reliable source than a media outlet. At the very least it's where the media outlet got the info, which I see you concede. Not listed as unreliable either so I'm still not seeing a reason to not include. The more reliable sources used (within reason) only helps to improve verifiability. As I say, we are obviously not going to convince the other so this seems to be pointless. We're simply going in circles. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Canadian Screen Awards are notable, and I never said otherwise — but the reason they're notable is because they get media coverage, and they wouldn't be notable if they didn't get media coverage. They can be listed in the articles about Lea Carlson ahd The Exchange and everybody else because they get media coverage, and they couldn't be listed in those articles if they didn't get media coverage. So to get them listed in any article, you have to use media coverage to source it, because the existence or non-existence of media coverage is what determines which awards can be listed and which awards can't. You're literally just making up strawmen to argue with me about, because I never said the Canadian Screen Awards weren't notable — you might want to try checking out who does the overwhelming majority of our work on CSA articles (e.g. who created 10th Canadian Screen Awards a few weeks ago, who's actually doing the work of getting the badly done category articles properly referenced to the standard they're actually supposed to be meeting, etc.) if you think I would ever say that they weren't notable. I said that notability is determined by media coverage, not by the fact that an award has its own self-published website — the CSAs have media coverage, and I never said any different, but the media coverage is what makes them notable enough to be listed in nominees' articles, and their own website isn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bearcat! Not making up straw-men, the accusation is rich since you keep slamming in the notability again & again without ever producing any legitimate rule that says Academy.ca can't be used as a Ref to prove a nomination/win. That's all I did, use Academy.ca as a Ref to prove an award. I even included a media source (Variety) as a second Ref. All of that has led you to doggedly argue with me about your view on how it should be done. The method I used is the same as the majority of people citing award nominations. So I guess it's all of us wrong & you right? I don't see where this is going. I don't agree with your take on this. From what I can see the majority don't agree with you either. So I guess you can be right on your own. "you might want to try checking out who does the overwhelming majority of our work on CSA articles..." Good for you, genuinely good for you. I also do good work too, here & elsewhere. Does not make you right. You brought up that awards need to be notable as if that was the issue with me using Academy.ca, so I shot that down. I'm really at a loss why you keep coming back. I'm not buying what you're selling. If you want people to agree with your way on this you'll need to convince far more people than me. You may also want to try a different method for persuading them as this has not been a pleasant experience. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not read most of the above discussion, but my rule of thumb on awards/whatever is that secondary WP:RS is best, but if the award or at least the org behind is notable (usually meaning it has a non-awful looking WP-article), a primary source will probably do. Having both is usually harmless, the primary source sometimes has some interesting info. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the tip! QuickQuokka [talk] 09:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thx for your help in the teahouse my man. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you very much QuickQuokka! I'm happy to have been of help! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Valkyrie Stunt Awards, United Kingdom

Could this be added? www.thevalyriestuntawards.org 2A02:C7F:1F66:BF00:8827:B713:51E1:D3BB (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there 2A02:C7F:1F66:BF00:8827:B713:51E1:D3BB! Looking into https://www.thevalkyriestuntawards.org & it seems to be a very new awards ceremony (appears to have only just started?) so it is probably too soon to create an article about it on Wikipedia. Articles here need some significant coverage first in order to qualify for an article. Once the first ceremony is held there will possibly be media coverage to support it. For advice from much more experienced editors, you may wish to ask about this over at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Hope this is of some help! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The original producer and distributor of Darcy's Wild Life

Wikipedia only allows the original producer and distributor of Darcy's Wild Life, so please do not change them again. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello AdamDeanHall! You are confused, I have not changed the distributors of Darcy's Wild Life. Please indicate the edit where you believe I have done so. In fact your recent edit has removed references to reliable sources that I added that actually support Temple Street handling production & distribution. I've no idea why you believe removing those but leaving the company in the article makes any sense at all? If you look at the history you'll find that this edit by Vidpro23 is the one that removed Discovery Communications. Would probably be best before making accusations to get your facts right first. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Adam is correct that only the original distributor (and credited producers) should be listed. But you added sources that should not have removed by Adam regardless.

What would be useful in this case would be an expansion of the 'Production' section of the article, with a lot of the material in the infobox covered in that section and properly sourced there. (IOW, MOS:INFOBOXCITE, etc...)

It seems probable to me that the actual distributor of the show was Discovery Communications, but I have not checked the cited source yet – What in that source indicates that Temple Street was actual the distributor?

One final comment – while adding sources is definitely good, I can't say I care how they've been added here (i.e. as "basic text", and not using a template like {{cite web}}). If that doesn't get changed by someone else, I will likely change the formatting of those cites to using {{cite web}} and related templates when I get the chance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello IJBall! "Adam is correct that only the original distributor (and credited producers) should be listed." And if I'd changed it I might understand why they are telling me this but as mentioned to them above, I did not change either. Please see this edit. It's a bit odd to be told not to do something again when I've not done it a first time. :) I notice a few minutes after telling them they got it wrong, they posted this identical message on Vidpro23's talk page. Would have been nice if they'd cleared things up with a post here.

"But you added sources that should not have removed by Adam regardless." Thanks, I added them back. Not the easiest show to find references for so I was pleased to find those & upset to see them removed without a proper reason.

"What would be useful in this case would be an expansion of the 'Production' section of the article" I did mention a while back on the Darcy Talk page that one of my added refs would be great to expand production/behind the scenes paragraph. I'm tempted to do so myself but things like this keep putting me off.

"...What in that source indicates that Temple Street was actual the distributor?" I personally have no dog in the fight as to who the original Distributor was, as I say I did not change it. As to the ref I added, since Temple Street was listed in the Distributor field when I was looking for the best use case for the references, I used the one which mentioned "Temple Street Entertainment, a Toronto-based TV and film production and distribution company responsible for TV's Queer as Folk and the new Darcy's Wild Life". When AdamDeanHall removed Temple Street from the distributor field I moved that one ref to support the fact they were Darcy's Production company as they also back that up.

"I can't say I care how they've been added here (i.e. as "basic text", and not using a template like {{cite web}})." Reference style is a choice as regards template vs writing them by hand. One is not promoted above the other. They match all the other citations I've done on that article. Personally I don't care for the citation template style as I find them rigid & also easily broken. I've been fixing a few recently in my travels that throw script errors because they left out a field, even a bot added one was broken the other day. So I stick to my preference of hand written citations, they aren't against any rules. Thanks for taking time to reply here! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree – it's not breaking any "rules". But simple-text based refs have disadvantages to template-based ones, so I am likely convert them when if/when I get the chance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ian Tracey

Ian Tracey 98.116.253.158 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello 98.116.253.158! Not sure what you're trying to say here? I did do some reference work on the Ian Tracey article, I tend to work on Canadian actor articles that have maintenance tags. Perhaps add some more detail to your comment so I can help. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kay Tremblay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gazette. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you kindly! I goofed when adding a link in a ref for The Montreal Gazette Wiki article, now corrected. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)