This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Doctor Who series 15 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Alex 21: As for your various reverts of many edits all relating to a report first made in the Daily Mirror, before being remade and "confirmed" in Variety, I thought I'd explain why, despite understanding before my reverts that Variety is generally considered as reliable, I removed various references to Millie leaving. Before I start however, while I bring up the Daily Mirror because they were the first to say they talked to a source on the prouduction, it's not relevant to this discussion as Variety would be a primary source in this case judging by what they've said in their article. As I understand it, Variety, while they use the word "confirm", they seem to use the word to mean they found a source that said the same as the Mirror's source. They have given no indication on who the source is, so it could a) be the same person as the Mirror's source and b) impossible to say whether the source is reliable or not. I'm in no doubt that Variety checked the source was who they said they were (i.e. I'm sure the source works on DW production or is otherwise closely connected with the show), but that does not show the source is a trustworthy person. Therefore this leak is all rumour until official confirmation comes from a press release from someone like the BBC, Disney, RTD or Bad Wolf. Hence I believe we should not reference it on Wikipedia. I would also point out if there was a new companion, it would not be long into filming before it has to be announced as the actor would have to be seen in public.
While this message is to Alex 21, any editor should feel free to participate in this discussion and hence it's on a article's talk page. -- Ted Edwards 00:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
[the community has] determined that Variety is a reliable source, but this isn't quite true. In fact no source is considered always reliable, because clearly any major publication will make mistakes etc. (though that's not what the issue is here). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says it's considered a
generally reliable source, so it is still possible to argue against using a Variety article as a source. Which I have done, since the reliability of the primary source is questionable without knowing exactly who they are and Variety offers no indication on their trustworthiness. Your reply also suggests I used the word "implies" in a way that I didn't, I used it to mean Variety makes it obivious the source works in or with Doctor Who production (I mean who else could they be?) without saying it explicitly. I did not use it to mean "the source implies its source is unreliable". -- Ted Edwards 01:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" (bold emphasis is mine). So in this case:
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.This is part means secondary sources often use multiple primary sources to come to a conclusion that Wikipedia can use. Reliable secondary sources also help establish notability of a subject. TLDR secondary sources are used more than primary sources but not because secondary sources are automatically more reliable.
which guideline or policy is not being confirmed to if Variety says "a source confirmed"?. I unfortunately don't understand what you mean by this, so if you could reword that question that would be great. -- Ted Edwards 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Doctor Who series 15 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Alex 21: As for your various reverts of many edits all relating to a report first made in the Daily Mirror, before being remade and "confirmed" in Variety, I thought I'd explain why, despite understanding before my reverts that Variety is generally considered as reliable, I removed various references to Millie leaving. Before I start however, while I bring up the Daily Mirror because they were the first to say they talked to a source on the prouduction, it's not relevant to this discussion as Variety would be a primary source in this case judging by what they've said in their article. As I understand it, Variety, while they use the word "confirm", they seem to use the word to mean they found a source that said the same as the Mirror's source. They have given no indication on who the source is, so it could a) be the same person as the Mirror's source and b) impossible to say whether the source is reliable or not. I'm in no doubt that Variety checked the source was who they said they were (i.e. I'm sure the source works on DW production or is otherwise closely connected with the show), but that does not show the source is a trustworthy person. Therefore this leak is all rumour until official confirmation comes from a press release from someone like the BBC, Disney, RTD or Bad Wolf. Hence I believe we should not reference it on Wikipedia. I would also point out if there was a new companion, it would not be long into filming before it has to be announced as the actor would have to be seen in public.
While this message is to Alex 21, any editor should feel free to participate in this discussion and hence it's on a article's talk page. -- Ted Edwards 00:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
[the community has] determined that Variety is a reliable source, but this isn't quite true. In fact no source is considered always reliable, because clearly any major publication will make mistakes etc. (though that's not what the issue is here). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says it's considered a
generally reliable source, so it is still possible to argue against using a Variety article as a source. Which I have done, since the reliability of the primary source is questionable without knowing exactly who they are and Variety offers no indication on their trustworthiness. Your reply also suggests I used the word "implies" in a way that I didn't, I used it to mean Variety makes it obivious the source works in or with Doctor Who production (I mean who else could they be?) without saying it explicitly. I did not use it to mean "the source implies its source is unreliable". -- Ted Edwards 01:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" (bold emphasis is mine). So in this case:
Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.This is part means secondary sources often use multiple primary sources to come to a conclusion that Wikipedia can use. Reliable secondary sources also help establish notability of a subject. TLDR secondary sources are used more than primary sources but not because secondary sources are automatically more reliable.
which guideline or policy is not being confirmed to if Variety says "a source confirmed"?. I unfortunately don't understand what you mean by this, so if you could reword that question that would be great. -- Ted Edwards 20:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)