Jump to content

User talk:Charsea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Working on the Ianto article :)

[edit]

Ok. The main problems with what you've written is it makes a lot of editorial choices and phrasings and purposefully tries to make itself "fairer" to a group who are not represented in any sources that way. For example, all the stuff about the de-gaying is complete nonsense but it still belongs in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to paste what you wrote back to you and put the unsourced editorial into bold. I apologise if I seem like I'm being harsh at all. If something's from a non-reliable source (ie. a fansite), I'll mark it in italics.


However, the Coventry Telepgraph sources are great finds and represent the fans voices very well. They each deserve inclusion with rebuttal, it's just a case of avoiding value-laden wording such as "given the opportunity to", "at the heart of this movement" and "thanks to". The thing about "abused" and "Supernatural"; doesn't the structure imply causality as it exists? Either way, the change isn't very offensive / it's rather minor. The main problem with the first two paragraphs is they rely on information from saveiantojones itself which is not a reliable source. The information it gives out is only reliable when Wales Online or Coventry Telegraph etc. repeat it. Pedantic, I know, but that's policy for you.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I included that AfterElton article within the Reception section under critics.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None perse, merely an insistence to keep all editorial/flowery prose at its minimum. I think the Coventry Telegraph articles are great and should be incorporated into the existing body of text; would you like to do it? And yes, at least a dozen more sources are sure to come and when we have a greater wealth of them we can give the section a proper once over again.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making a whole new section out of it? I really do not think the saveiantojones campaign should be distinguished from the larger "fan reaction"; it does not carry independent notability, and the two movements if we were to view them as such are not clearly delineated. I would suggest rather, add the new citations to what is said about saveiantojones and if you can, write it so that it held its own paragraph if you are really fixed on their campaign receiving particular attention. It shouldn't get its own section, though; it's still fan reaction, if a well-organised one. But yes, the information shouldn't repeat. Maybe this needs a third opinion. I'll ask Bignole (talk · contribs) what he thinks on the matter, as he's quite an experienced editor and very au fait with policy.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble imagining the completed section, so I'd suggest go ahead and do it without removing information (apart from duplicates, for which removing is of course fine!) and if I or other editors have problems we can address them as subsequent edits. Knock yourself out :).~ZytheTalk to me! 10:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Well done.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]