This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Witchfinders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
As has been discussed before on talk pages for the previous series, an outside reference is a direct quote, image, etc., of a particular work of art, piece of literature, etc. There may be several in the episode but we only bring it up in the section if it has been discussed by a secondary source. This has been. In fact, it was important enough to be included in the subtitle used in the source article. That is enough to establish notability.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not accuse me of starting an edit war when you are the one editing against consensus. You added the content, then another editor reverted it based on notability, you reverted them and I've reverted you. Matt14451 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRDBold, revert, discuss. They were bold, I reverted, I opened a disussion. You reverted during the discussion. That's against policy and consensus, since GUtt is no longer removing the material: they've re-edited it. So, actually, you're the one going against consenus (such as can even be said to exist at this stage). When material has been added that is sourced, it should not simply be removed without discussion unless it is blatantly in violation of the rules somehow. This was sourced (now with two secondary sources) and within the definitions established above, which we've been working with for years on these pages. I have no problem at all following consensus but you need discuss something to establish that consensus. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I reverted your edit this discussion hadn't started and GUtt hadn't re-added the content (only reverted it) so those are irrelevant to your accusation of me starting an edit war. Would be relevant if I had reverted again following Gutt subsquent actions but I haven't. You boldly edited, the status quo remains while you try and change the consensus. The consensus is the established version of the article. You can source trivial content and it still not be relevant to the article. I could add to the article saying 1+1=2 but it would be removed regardless of the sourcing. Number of sources now doesn't matter for this discussion as there wasn't when I reverted.
When it comes to the actual content, I haven't seen the episode yet (waiting for family) so won't comment further than it seems trivial and not appropriate for the plot section. Matt14451 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the middle of trying to get the discussion started when I saw your edit. Everything happened very fast and I admit I lost my cool a bit and should not have used the word edit war so for that I apologize. If I acted against BRD myself, if I have misunderstood where the B in it actually begins, then I'll stand corrected. Moving on, whether something is trivia or not may be in the eye of the beholder, which is why we minimally require sources for everything. Since sources are what we depend on I went and found a second one to reinforce notability. You seem to accept that as you suggest it be moved elsewhere in the article (away from plot), but that would go go against already established wider consensus on Doctor Who pages concerning properly-sourced Continuity and Outside references, which do indeed go directly underneath the plot section. I don't know if you're new to these pages: we haven't had much sourced continuity or outside references this series so far, but have a look at the pages of the episodes of the previous series, and those immediately before. That's the structure. We adamantly don't do trivia lists on these pages and I certainly don't waste my time adding trivia to Wikipedia. If anything, I burn it when it's unsourced wherever I see it, or try to work it into an article properly if it is properly sourced (as I did on Mars and April earlier this year, a labour of many hours). Back to the material in question, it's a direct quote of an outside work, not a thowaway line or a tease like some other stuff we've see this series, and sourced properly and in the right place in the article.ZarhanFastfire (talk)
