Talk:Paul Finch

message: This article has quite a number of bare urls being used as references. Bare URLs are not really desirable because they allow the possibility of link rot. These references should be filled in as much as possible per WP:CITEHOW. There are a few ways this can be done, but I personally think ciatation templates is the easiest. I've added a  template to the article just to make others aware of the issue. It can be removed once the bare URLs have been fixed. Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciative. Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare URLs 

message: Speaking of knee-jerk deletions...2 perfectly harmless and free images were deleted from this page, despite their obvious relevance to the books in discussion on the page. What is Wikipedia Commons there for? Answer: amongst other things to provide a free resource to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I spent some time looking through Wikipedia Commons to find appropriate images to improve the appearance of the page and someone just comes along and deletes them. How is this helpful and constructive? They are free - whoever uploaded them wants them to be used. What is the problem??S.tollyfield (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What images are you talking about? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The images were the original versions of Red Sands Fort and Mort d'Arthur - someone did not like them and deleted them. I took the opportunity to put back slightly different versions of them. But now someone else has deleted all the book covers from the page - which other editors did not object to. It seems if you leave things long enough every illustration you put on a page will be deleted by someone who objects to it!! So how can you ever get a consensus!?!S.tollyfield (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia Commons

message: Hello, S.Tollyfield! I just want to welcome you. Also, about those "quick deletions": Very annoying they are, I am sure. Now each editor has a different way of handling what seem to be problematic entries. Sometimes he or she will just put a WP:Template in the text and hope that another editor will make a correction. Others (I am in this class) will often simply remove the offending word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or artwork (with an Edit Summary stating the reason) and then wait for another editor to put it back. Then, if any editor feels like it, he or she will open a discussion about the problem on the Talk Page. This is known as WP: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Editor 1 is BOLD and makes an edit or a deletion; Editor 2 then REVERTS the deletion, following which anybody can open a DISCUSSION on the Talk Page about the change. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus. It sounds complicated, but it often goes smoothly enough if everybody keeps his or her head. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold, Revert, Discuss

message: The image showing the cover of Nora and the Magic Tree is copyrighted, and can be used by Wikipedia only under these circumstances:
Copyrighted / This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or their heirs. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art for critical commentary on
the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. . .  Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.
I have removed it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of images 

message: The fact of Finch's parentage is, it seems to me, not important enough to feature in the lead but it would be well served by a new "Biography" section, which I created but which was reverted by User:S.tollyfield with an  Edit Summary stating "Delete Biography section - why put this in just to put that it needs expanding!!! Who is going to do that? I'm not." I put the section back so that we can look at it while we discuss it here. The question to be resolved is: "Should there be a new section for biographical details?" They are sadly lacking in the current version. Thanks for taking part. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is a biography so having a "biography" section is redundant. The standard sections in bios for these details are "Early life and education" and "Personal life".--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: That Finch wrote one episode of Meeow! is NOT supported by the two references. The first reference a primary source, calls it MAISIEMAC: MAISIE IN THE RAINFOREST, the second reference doesn't mention Finch at all? User:S.tollyfield says "I've read the comments, but together they do" ….I'm afraid they clearly don't.Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above in "Children's animation", I agree with 's assessment. Synthesizing information found in multiple references into something that is not explicitly stated in any of those references is not something we as editors should being doing per WP:SYN. The wording in articles should reflect what is explicitly written in reliable sources per WP:RSCONTEXT; Editors should not be trying to mold and shape sources to match what is written in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

text: (Note: I suggest combining this section with "Children's animation" above so as to keep all discussion related to these sources in one place to make it easier to follow from start to finish. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor references Comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Finch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030040410/http://grayfriarpress.com/catalogue/index.html to http://www.grayfriarpress.com/catalogue/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110192543/http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/british-fantasy-awards/the-british-fantasy-awards-a-short-history/ to http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/british-fantasy-awards/the-british-fantasy-awards-a-short-history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified