Talk:David Firth (animator)

Devvo

"Under the pseudonym Devvo, David Firth has released videos, produced four short films for Screenwipe on Channel 4 and released several singles. Devvo is a character that parodies chav culture in the UK."

It is probably not intentional, but I think this could imply that Firth actually portrays the character of Devvo, which is not the case as the role is actually played by one of his friends. Maybe this should be reworded.

Malveril (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Geo Seven (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion and recreation

I am as optimistic as anyone about creating an article about David Firth. Before this article was deleted, there was much more information about him and his works. A few years ago, it was considered for deletion, and the consensus was to redirect "David Firth" to "Salad Fingers" (his most noteworthy work at the time), and of course, it was recently deleted completely.

So, why was this article deleted? And would it be appropriate to create the article again?

There is still information about David Firth from the previous article, courtesy of the Wayback Machine (the latest version is January 2007). Would it be appropriate to add this information to the article?

http://web.archive.org/web/20070101212310/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Firth

Keshidragon (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that David Firth article should not keep getting deleted because he is a very popular animator. He is a YouTube partner (doki66) and if there is an article about one of his animations then there should be a article about the owner, David Firth too, so the article should stay i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxzq (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I heard of David Firth and his creations from a wide range of sources, from word-of-mouth to UK television. I relied on Wikipedia to provide more information about this interesting artist. Before this article was deleted, Wikipedia fulfilled and exceeded my expectations by serving the information I was after. Now it does not; the new article is very much sub-par. IMHO the original article should be restored. --82.71.4.31 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was this deleted in the first place??? YBK

I reckon it had something to do with a couple admins not much caring for the guy. To not include David Firth in Wikipedia is to not include Jesus in the Bible. "Fuck you, Graham!" Swamilive (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it had something to do with three AfD discussions. --Geniac (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Y'reckon? Swamilive (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it seem like Wikipedia admins are becoming more anal than ever. This whole David Firth thing reminds me of the rediculously overblown debate on whether or not to have an Angry Video Game Nerd article.
It also reminds me of why I left Moby Games. I had a rare game they did not believe existed and because I could not find a source on the internet or a magazine to verify my claim that it existed they deleted it from the system.
Anyway I think there definatly should be an article on Firth, but on the other hand there really is no hard facts about the guy other than his works. Kind of a catch 22.
Either way though you would think that the article would mention some of his other popular works like Burnt Face Man or Men From Up The Stairs.
Geo Seven (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are most definitely becoming more anal lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegakingboo (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The most annoying thing was trying to read those Article for Deletion discussions and being swarmed with links to indecipherable acronyms under the WP namespace. This almost seems like a cant of sorts, designed to make such discussions extremely hard-to-follow to relative outsiders such as myself. I realize this is rather off-topic but seriously, why do people do that? Why can't you at least link to the full word. Is "Notability" that much harder to type than the letter "N"? --Insidious611 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking about the third one in particular. My personal theory is that if Firth was American, and had the same relative level of notability over there, any attempt to delete the article would result in the nominator being blocked for a week. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletes this Son of a Beenatch-Jim (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.151.123.247 (talk)

Jerry Jackson?

It's still him, right? 64.20.10.210 (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jerry Jackson is a Pseudonym of David Firth.

Conkern65 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture of David Firth

If no one is going to, I will upload a picture later. Conkern65 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

English?

I think he's Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, he's definitely English. He lives in the North of England. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently Titled Currently Titled

"He is currently working on his first animated feature film, currently titled "The Meadow Man". Firth believes the title will eventually change, though has said that for now it is the official title...".

The redundant, multiple uses of the word 'currently' with its synonym 'for now' should suggest immediate reconsideration. Basically the phrase 'currently titled' requires no explanation here.

Then... perhaps we can consider the way that way we identify a work of art relates not to the edict of the auteur, but to social conventions. Under capitalism no "title" is reliably permanent. The copyright holder of any work may re-title it for wise marketing reasons- or indefensible personal reasons- ad lib'[ie., 'at will']. And indeed we have seen composers who loathe the names and associations given to their music by their publishers. For 40 years Mozart's piano concerto #21 has been aka "Elvira Madigan".

OTOH import and originality tend to preserve auteur intent. Mozart wrote so many concertos that new names could be helpful. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 07:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:David Firth, Salad Fingers Animator, 2012.jpg

The file File:David Firth, Salad Fingers Animator, 2012.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:David Firth, Salad Fingers Animator, 2012.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Name, date and place of birth

IMDb gives Firth's date and place of birth as 23 January 1983 in Doncaster here. FreeBMD supports this, and a middle name of John, in it's birth entry here. Amazon also gives the same date and place here as does last.fm here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:DOB, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources. WP:IMDB and WP:RSPAMAZON are both unreliable. FreeBMD is effectively a birth index, hence a primary source, which generally shouldn't be used, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Last.fm is deprecated. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that at least the available sources agree. What about Last.fm? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What does it matter if the available sources are unusable? Throast (talk | contribs) 12:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FreeBMD is rarely wrong. Even though it is precluded, by WP:BLPPRIMARY, from use in an article, it can be used to help determine the most likely name, location or date from amongst competing claims. If other editors find reliable source(s) for these details, they might find it useful. My question was about Last.fm. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it is apparently so difficult to find anything usable on this sort of information (let alone any substantive information on the subject) strongly suggests that David Firth's DOB and POB are simply not widely published by reliable sources. I will assure you that no other editor will be able to prove this sort of broad coverage required by WP:DOB. I've addressed Last.fm in my first response. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's 99% certain that Frith was born in Doncaster, on 23 January 1983, with the middle name of John. But yes, WP rules prevent this information from being added. I disagree that this is necessarily related to there being a lack of "substantive information on the subject". Many BLP articles have in-depth interviews with their subjects without place and date of birth, or middle names being mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, not really what I said. I suggested that you won't find his DOB and POB widely published by reliable sources. Plain interviews are certainly not the best sources for substantive information on a subject in a BLP because they are primary. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's another source for Doncaster that is not classified as deprecated. And another here. He's also mentioned in this piece about Doncaster in The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian source claims MC Devvo was born there, not Firth himself. Those other two fringe sources certainly don't constitute "widely published". Throast (talk | contribs) 12:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Can those sources be used to support his place of birth or not? What's on your list of "widely published"? Or perhaps it's just a single number? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just those, in my opinion, no. It's up to you how you interpret "widely published by reliable sources". I interpret it as meaning published in at least four or five safely reliable sources (meaning the green ones on that list).

There is a high standard of inclusion for a reason. We're talking about personal information here. We should always assume that the subject does not wish this sort of information to be public unless they publish it themselves. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

So is that at least four or at least five? Just to be clear, you're saying not only that "at least four safely reliable sources" need to have published these details, before they could be added, but so does the subject personally himself. I've never come across that level of sourcing requirement before in 15 years of editing. I've seen countless BLP articles which rely on just one or two sources for such details, with no suggestion that "the subject has published them themselves". Nor the suggestion that their own personal wishes make any difference whatsoever. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've linked to WP:DOB multiple times now. Read it. I'm not here to discuss what's being done on other articles. I'm here to discuss this article's compliance with WP policies, nothing more and nothing less. Personal information is certainly protected on Wikipedia, even of notable people, unless a comparatively high threshold of reliable coverage is met. What this exact threshold is has to be established through consensus because it is not clearly defined by policy. I think we can all agree however that two sources mentioning his birthplace does not constitue "widely published". Throast (talk | contribs) 13:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've had enough of your instructions and personally-decided criteria, thanks. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't be deleted

Definitely notable for Salad Fingers, and also for Devvo. Both of those have pages on wikipedia. Obviously, just being related to these two things doesn't mean he is notable enough for a page, but I don't see how he is not notable. He has done animations on Charlie Brookers screenwipe, various things for other shows, made animations for the BBC and playboy, so it's not like he's just some guy who happens to be related to multiple notable things.

EDIT: I know we're not meant to compare articles, but I see David Lovelace was also nominated for deletion but had it declined as notability was asserted. I'd have to say that Firth is far more notable than lovelace. At least from what I see. Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He also is credited for at least one episode of Smiling Friends now which should be more than enough for at least a small article Omicron91 (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As ThadeusOfNazereth has commented at Talk:Salad Fingers, you could request a deletion review, which I see nobody has done yet. I see that Smiling Friends is also notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anoldtreeok, Omicron91, and Martinevans123: Hey all, this is just to let y'all know that I've submitted a deletion review for David Firth. RexSueciae (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I submitted a copy of a new draft that was rejected a few days ago, I realise I'm not the best at referencing but I have that missing info and updated stuff on there so should the deletion review be successful in the re-insertion of the original article you should be able to update/fill in some of the information through that if it's helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Firth_(animator) Deathmaumau (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully something is able to be done because at the moment searching any of his work re-directs to the Salad Fingers page which is grossly unhelpful to anyone wanting to know about Devvo or Burnt Face Man or his music projects like Locust Toybox because, as expected, the Salad Fingers page has no info on those and the re-directs may lead to some confusion. Deathmaumau (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You might want to add material from: Ball, Ryan (June 2007). "Rising Stars of Animation and VFX Class of 2007. David Firth: Animator, www.Fat-Pie.com". Animation Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 6. p. 32. ISSN 1041-617X. EBSCOhost 505211778. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Some sources

I managed to break the format for deletion review stuff, then fixed it once I found the missing end-bracket. Anyways, future editors may find these sources useful:

• Foster, George (May 1, 2022). "Salad Fingers Creator David Firth Wiped From Wikipedia After Being Deemed "Not Notable Enough"". TheGamer. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• Minsker, Evan (May 30, 2017). "Flying Lotus Appears in David Firth's Creepy New Short Film: Watch". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• "Flying Lotus features in a short film by David Firth". DIY. May 31, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• Kim, Michelle Hyun (October 30, 2017). "David Firth ("Salad Fingers") Shares New Locust Toybox Album: Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
• Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022.

RexSueciae (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

e.g. "David Firth's Salad Fingers was a popular Flash character" - BBC News (1 January 2022). The argument seems to be "Salad Fingers is what's famous, and it's more notable than Firth, so Firth himself can't be considered notable." Apparently there's "little topical overlap between the two articles." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources for Works

The following snippet and source has been removed as being a 'primary source'.

and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine.

The reliability of the BBC as a Publically Funded Broadcaster has been well rehearsed in Wikipedia. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Collective_(BBC) and so on. It is a reliable source. The idea that an Arts Current Affairs Programme from the BBC, that has existed for a decade to comment on the Arts, might be a primary source for Firth is tenuous. The Programme clearly shows an edited interview with credits given to Researchers from MIT and Cambridge and a professional Online Editor as well as a Film Researcher. There is, therefore, no question of original research - the BBC have done the research - or it being a Primary Source for Firth - the BBC have structured the message. Yes, it could be argued to be a Primary Source for Yentob but Yentob is not the subject of the article.

The interview is formed and contexualised by someone other that Firth and Firth's role was to participate under the Editorial Control of the BBC or not take part at all. The reliability is with the BBC as a notable secondary source. This should not need repeating.

It can be seen here {Youtube|id=AmeGJ0xWNbc|title=David Firth Interview Alan Yentob} which extracts the interview from the BBC Work but clearly shows it is not Firth's work. Perhaps it would be appropriate in a critical response section. In addition the programme was reported in the Radio Times and within Television Listings for a range of newspapers. I do not have those to hand. They are frequently used to update user content websites which places those reports out of scope for reliabilty for well rehearsed reasons. Ignoring the interview and watching the credits actually clarifies that this is reliable secondary source interview with a neutral point of view.

Not everybody gets interviewed by Alan Yentob. It suggests that Firth actually is notable enough for reliable sources with research status - MIT and Cambridge - to evaluate his body of work. It is certainly not a primary source, nor original research, nor unreliable, nor excessive. It is an adequate reference point that fits in with the consensus around the BBC as a source.

I am unwilling to put it back in as that would seem bad faith despite the thoroughly respectable grounds for inclusion. If someone is inclined to add the reference in again, I believe the article will be improved by highlighting that Firth warrants critical evaluation by reliable sources and that there is a serious, reliable, context for the evaluation of Animators in general but also for what Firth does, in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenestre (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

References

So, I thought about this for a bit and couldn't really figure out what the issue was. I opened a thread at the help desk to get a third opinion. As I understand it, the issue with these kinds of claims ("He did X." [source: X]) is that you're not citing secondary coverage, which makes the claim undue, meaning there's no justification for inclusion. When making these kinds of claims, you need to cite a source that actually says "he did X", instead of citing X as "evidence" of sorts. It's hard to explain, but I hope that clears it up. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

BBC Documentaries are, very much, secondary coverage. The Wikipedia archives on the BBC as reliable sources indicate that much. There is no issue of claiming "Firth did X" and then citing Firth. Yentob makes the claim about Firth and demonstrates it by referring back to things Firth did, in fact, dowithin a researched documentary that employed a Film Researcher to do exactly what you ask when you say:

you need to cite a source that actually says "he did X", instead of citing X as "evidence" of sorts. It's hard to explain, but I hope that clears it up.

So there is no general contention that the BBC documentary is very much a secondary source. BBC Documentary standards ensure that it is.

Your question at the Help Desk illuminates that the dificulty that seems hard to explain is not with the source in and of itself but with the way in which the significance of the source was articulated:

If I add the following information to an article: "John Doe did an interview", and cite the interview as the source, which policy am I in violation of? Am I using the interview as a primary source or would the claim be considered original research? Can't quite wrap my head around it. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's primary, so you can use it without attribution for WP:ABOUTSELF, and anything that might be self serving of contentious should be attributed. That's my understanding anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more accurate to say "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth", which is what happened. Perhaps it would help to actually view the interview and so provide a form of words you are happy with.

The documentary is not Firth presenting about himself as a self serving exercise, if you follow the link and watch the interview, and examine the documentary credits and check that it is with the BBC then you can rapidly establish that it is neither original research - the BBC, MIT and Cambridge already did the original research - and is not self-serving: Alan Yentob is an Arts Commentator with a serious track record of presenting Cultural Creators who are significant and whose future careers will be fruitful in the arts sector. That process is actually quite significant in the UK as parts of the "arts industries". It is part of the BBC remit to educate the public.

The same Documentary might be put forward to say that the person making the millionth edit to Wikipedia is notable because that is one of the research findings of the BBC, MIT and Cambridge. Yentob mentions that person in passing so it is actually possible to compare the notability accorded to Firth by Yentob. I am not convinced by the Documentary that there is anything but a passing mention of that edit while there is a prolonged assessment and comment on Firth.

Perhaps you were unable to follow the link. I would suggest actually watching the 'whole' documentary if you are inclined or just this segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmeGJ0xWNbc Th BBC do not permit whole documentaries to appear on Youtube on copyright grounds. which is an obstacle but not a prohibition. I appreciate that video media is time consuming and contentious but that does not preclude actually looking at what is being cited. Which appears to be the significant problem here: how to actually assess the content of the citation itself in order to provide a clear form of words.

The reason that it was removed was 'primary source'. I am unclear as to why you seem to want it to not be added back in given that it is not really a primary source even if the actual wording is poor. Fenestre (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there seemed to have been a misunderstanding. You got it right in the first few paragraphs. I'm not arguing the source can't be used at all, I was just trying to help you understand why it can't be used in the way it was used here. Alternatively, you could extract information from the interview, summarize it, and integrate it into the article that way. Throast (talk | contribs) 06:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So, is the clunky phrase "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth" - which we seem to agree is accurate - an effective use of the secondary source? What wording are you suggesting? It is, essentially, the same use just a lack of consensus on the form of words not that the citation was to a primary source. Fenestre (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Any wording akin to what you're proposing would be undue. I refer you to my first comment above where I try to explain this conundrum. You can extract information from the interview, e.g. what Firth talks about, and summarize it (or perhaps quote Firth). That would be a perfectly good use of the source and WP:ABOUTSELF would apply for statements made by Firth in the interview. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not proposing wording. I am clearly asking for suggested wording as the consensus would seem to be that the wording used was inappropriate or, perhaps, lacking neutrality. There is no conundrum. Firth was commented on by a significant cultural commentator on National Television. That is what the entire reference amounts to: Firth is commented upon publically by an acknowledged expert. The really difficult part seems to be the neutrality of expressing that. Which is where your guidance would be invaluable. Goo faith addition of "and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine." would clearly fail to communicate something that seems obvious to me and not to you.

The constraints of rules "commenting about yourself" are relevant so direct quotation being avoided would be more productive. Since it is Yentob and others who have structured and edited the interview Firth is not self publishing and self serving interviews are strictly deprecated by the BBC so the dangers of "commenting about yourself" are significantly reduced. Yentob remarks on Firth as one of a number of talented creative individuals who no longer have to tout their wares around television companies or distributors to get them out to the masses and remarks on the work of Firth as Fantastic, dark, animations. Clearly the danger in abstracting from that is falling into some variety of original research. Clearly that is not intended. Hence guidance on proposed wording would ensure a consensus rather than contention.

Which part is obscured to you: that is possibly the best guide to clarity. Fenestre (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't explain it to you any more clearly. I don't intend to propose anything. Again, just trying to explain to you why we can't source A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth or any similar claim directly to the interview. Sorry again. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It needs no clearer explanation. We agree on that. It simply needs a clearer expression of the fact being stated. I am merely disappointed that and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine. is without clarity. The linking of Yentob and Imagine would allow a Reader to draw their own conclusion and so avoid any Editor imposing a point of view. Which would surely be the purpose. Surely that is neutral enough.

To be clear "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth" was never a suggested wording. Had and contributed an interview to Walter Cronkite for CBS been the phrasing the idea that "A significant cultural commentator chose to interview and provide commentary on Firth" would be equally possible to say. it is not about wanting to source that. The sourcing is of an alternative to and contributed an interview to Alan Yentob for Imagine. The importance of a Walter Cronkite interview might not be obvious in the UK and an Alan Yentob interview in the US but that is not the role of Editors to change. Fenestre (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead role

Is "independent animator" (emphasis on "independent") and "screenwriter" really what he's commonly described as in reliable sources, MOS:ROLEBIO? From what I gather, I'd simply opt for "animator". Throast (talk | contribs) 22:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is how he was described at the Glasgow Film Festival in their Brochure already linked. He is not formally attached to a studio and so, for all intents and purposes of Arts Council, British Film Institute and National Lottery Funding the consensus would be that he falls to the job description "independent animator". It is little more than the common description anybody would be given and so it is not particularly a controversial term. The same applies to the screenwriter. Yentob used the term as did the Raindance festival. The UK Arts Community consists of, for the most part, independent X because that is the nature of the UK Arts Community. Unless you consider Firth to be an 'independent animator' he would be regarded as a 'work for hire jobbing animator' and thus of no notability at all. Fenestre (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We, meaning us editors, do not get to determine his occupation. I've taken a look at every source currently used in the article: Animation Magazine, The Daily Dot, The Independent, BBC, Pitchfork, and Fact Magazine all simply call Firth an "animator". Spotlight calls him an "online animator", and, apparently, Glasgow Film Festival calls him an "independent animator". Yentob does not call Firth a screenwriter, at least not in this video. That video also refers to him simply as an "animator". I think we can conclude that, per MOS:ROLEBIO, he's most commonly described simply as an "animator". Throast (talk | contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely not Wikipedia Editors' place to determine his occupation. But that is the common language description used by the Arts Council et al when determining his position within the Arts Community. If he is not an independent then then he is attached. It is not really contentious in the Arts. If he were to work for Disney he would be called a Disney Animator. If he were Nick Park he might be described as an Aardman Animator or an Independent Animator depending on the stage of his career. It really is not unusual language. 'Independents' are so common they have their own exhibitions: https://independentsbiennial.com/ - which encompass a wide range of the arts - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/england/london/articles/Londons-independent-art-galleries-ten-of-the-best/ - it is not really contentious. We agree he is an Animator and he happens to be independent. Nothing about that determines his occupation. Fenestre (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In determining someone's occupation on Wikipedia, we do nothing more than a) look at sources about that person, b) evaluate what sources most commonly call that person. We don't apply our own judgment about what most accurately describes that person. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely correct there can be no application of judgement. There is no application of judgement. Judgement would be to fail to call him an Independent Animator as that would go against the reference for Glasgow Film Festival and common British idiom. The judgement was made by Glasgow Film Festival - again an organisation driven and funded by Public Money - in the previously linked Festival Catalogue. The Glasgow Film Festival catalogue has been found worthy of use for other parts of Wikipedia for Independent Film Makers. So it really is not controversial. The only problem then would be crowding every single word with a citation which is clearly counterproductive.

We certainly cannot just rely on what we gather as a sole criterion otherwise we end up up tipping into original research which is not productive. The Glasgow Film Festival used the phrase and it is casually British Idiom in the Arts as evidenced by the Festival Catalogue. If we must verify and cite for each word the danger is that citation is purely reflective of the Editors not the subject matter. Which, again, is counterproductive. Fenestre (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to read MOS:ROLEBIO if you haven't done so already. One source doesn't constitute "commonly described". If we can't agree, I offer to open an RfC and get some third opinions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It really is just a matter of plain uncontroversial good faith English usage. It is not really about Editors agreeing it is the blunt fact that 'independent animator' or 'independent filmmaker' is common usage in English. A commercial or employment claim might be 'freelance' not 'independent'.

If you insist that the Manual of Style requires the word 'independent' is verified by a citation the I am at a loss as to where, exactly that is stated. What the Manual of Style postions and roles section does say is this:

The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable.

Being 'independent' is not a role or a job title or a claim of a credential. It is how the role of Animator is disposed or. Being an independent animator is clearly distinct from being a staff animator. It shows clear usage in, for example:

Fangoria https://www.fangoria.com/original/re-animation-regarding-animated-horror/

blog content https://unit6hellaisawesome.blogspot.com/

and so on https://modernhorrors.com/everything-coming-to-shudder-in-november-2018/ clearly it is just common language use. Calling Firth an independent animator short circuits the overloading of the lead paragraph and draws attention to notability.

The Request for Comment process is time consuming and Editors' time is valuable. I am sure there are more productive things to do that can be achieved on a Talk Page using the three opinion rule on the third opinion page.

My understanding is that 'Independent Animator' is a neutral point of view that is commonly used in the UK Arts Community by a wide range of Funders and Agencies to describe all manner of creatives on the basis that they are not staff creatives and that it constitutes plain, good faith, English usage. It is not a job description.

As I have indicated earlier and will indicate again, I am happy to agree.

The lack of clarity in what exactly the objection to the use of common good faith language current in the community that Firth is a part of has me at a loss. There is no disagreement that he is independent of the BBC, for example, and ITV, and Channel 4, and Aardman Studios and all of the other major content creation businesss in the UK offered. There are no citations to say he is an employee of those organisations or cannot possibly be described as independent. So what is the exact objection to the use of Plain English here? When discussed in secondary references Firth is called an independent animator. Setting aside the reliability of those particular references in terms of the biography of a particular living person, the blunt fact is that those references show common language use. Calling someone an independent animator simply ensures the Reader is aware of the independence of the animator from major corporate animation studios.

So far as I can see, no real objection to 'independent animator' exists. It is not a matter of citation. Indeed Wikipedia itself uses the term 'Independent Animation' to describe a whole list of people as independent animators using the criterion The term independent animation refers to animated shorts and feature films produced outside a major national animation industry. and does so without providing a huge bibliography of who they do not work for.

There are multiple sources that use the phrase of Firth.

As to disagreement: I am happy to agree to any way of replacing the idiom 'independent animator'. Fenestre (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC on David Firth's ROLEBIO

There is disagreement about which MOS:ROLEBIO should be chosen for David Firth. The term "animator" by itself is used by seven out of the thirteen sources currently used in the draft (Animation Magazine, The Daily Dot, The Independent, BBC, Pitchfork, Fact Magazine, BBC). The term "online animator" is used once (Spotlight). The term "independent animator" and "screenwriter" are used by zero sources currently used in the draft, and I can't find any other reliable sources that refer to him this way. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think it matters. It's literally a difference of one word, whose presence or absence does not affect the quality of the article. He is an animator, and in the sources he is not described as being affiliated with a major studio, so "independent animator" would be a reasonable conclusion. I see also a question about the use of "screenwriter," which is odd, because at least one source in this article actually describes him co-writing a screenplay. That makes him a screenwriter. But really -- is this discussion necessary? RexSueciae (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't hold RfCs for drafts. Start by discussing in the normal way, perhaps informing relevant WikiProjects of the discussion that is taking place here. If you need to escalate, there are plenty of appropriate noticeboards without jumping straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC. Even if you think that RfC is the only way, make sure that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: Well, we are writing in wikivoice. The lede is a summary of the body of the article, and the body of the article is a summary of available reliable sources. The article says he is an animator with no particular affiliation to a studio, so he's an independent animator. The article says he wrote a film, so he's a screenwriter. This is not synthesis, or original research, it's just... a voice. A summary. I also don't advise relying on a head-count of sources to determine his role: I think this matter is analogous to Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy. Incidentally, I wouldn't be upset if indepedent was deleted (as the person who wrote it) cause maybe it reads better as just "animator", but I would raise eyebrows over "screenwriter" going as reliable sources referenced in the article commonly describe him as a writer of a film. JAYFAX (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just quickly want to add more thoughts: I sympathise with why you're raising this issue, because it was sort of an issue in the discarded article, where it got as silly as stuff like "broadcaster" tacked on. But in the current state of the article, I'd find it jarring if "screenwriter" wasn't there, given it talks about film writing a little later in the sentence. Anyway, I'm currently more leaning towards:

[indepdendent] animator and filmmaker.

If you can accept my point that we don't need to be verbatim about sources. But had been holding off on that until add more material about his live-action works to justify that. JAYFAX (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

JAYFAX, ROLEBIO is not about summarizing the article. It is nothing more than an empirical analysis of which occupation sources ascribe to him most commonly. Please anyone just read the MOS guideline. He is described most commonly in reliable sources simply as "animator". It might be true that he is in fact an independent animator, and he might have co-written one film (which btw does not automatically make you a screenwriter by occupation), but this is just not how sources–on average–commonly refer to him. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally do not understand what the objection to calling an independent animator an independent animator is. Firth is given the title in the Glasgow Film Festival Catalogue. Which is produced under the editorial control of the BFI and National Lottery as well as the corporate sponsors (cf pp. 2 & 56 & 61). . The Glasgow Film Festival Catalogue has been used as a reliable source for other articles on Wikipedia so any argument about it being reliable there and not here would seem obtuse or wilful. The catalogue does explictly mention that Firth has become one of the UK's most significant independent animators and that description needs to sit well with all the corporate sponsors. So the editorial process of the catalogue has determined it is fine to call Firth an 'independent animator'. The quote ascribing him 'most significant' is not being suggested, just the, 'independent animator' - although, given the appearance on Imagine it is understandable that the conclusion was drawn by the Film Festival. It really is a minor biographical detail that has sufficient attestation without endlessly litigating the single word.

While insisting that the term must appear in a reliable citation is perfectly reasonable it seems that reliable citations are discarded just as readily as unreliable citations. It is not original research to say Firth gets called an Independent Animator it is more common language.

I would not suggest or or hold much importance outside of the Horror Fan Community. They do clearly accord Firth the distinction of being 'independent' as common language. Because 'independence' of a film maker from studios is a trait Horror fans seek out it is used of independents. It is actually helpful to use the word in the Wikipedia article as it is consistent with common usage.

Firth does not work for a studio and that does make him colloquially 'independent' and Firth has been recognised by at least one Film Festival as 'independent' and Firth is commonly referred to as 'independent' by people who use the word to distinguish him from a 'studio' animator. It is, empirically, what he is to the world and empirically what a large part of the World calls him regardess of what Editors argue about. It seems to me the issue of "is Firth an independent animator" has vanished into something that is unrelated to the actual biography being developed with the consequent danger of simply gaming the system over a single word.

Independent Animator makes it very clear what an animator is unless there is a better word for independent. None has been suggested and a blank space loses a lot from the biography.

Note: the links in this are done as web citations simply to put them all in one place. Nothing more. Simply to make them easier to read not to assert anything other than that. Fenestre (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Place and place of birth

IMDb here gives "January 23, 1983 in Doncaster, England." This is supported by his FreeBMD entry here, which also confirms his mother's maiden name as Jones. Perhaps a WP:RS can be found for these details. Secret Manchester here says "Doncaster born David Firth", but I'm not sure if that's considered RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I might be being dumb, but doesn't that FreeBMD page say he was born in March? JAYFAX (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make. UK birth registrations are grouped per quarter, so it just means he was born in the first quarter, which is named "March". Thanks for asking. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully want to point to WP:DOB, which says that Wikipedia only includes dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, meaning multiple reliable sources are required. I also want to note that we do not rely on unreliable sources such as IMDb–not even for general reference–or on primary sources such as birth indexes like FreeBMD. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And I respectfully suggest that this date might be useful if searching for a reliable source. That's the only reason I posted it here. If you have a more likely place and date, by all means tell us what they are. FreeBMD may not be usable, but it's generally extremely accurate. p.s. is Secret Manchester an RS or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. JAYFAX (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Have added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Description of Salad Fingers

Now, this may just be me, but describing Salad Fingers as "a strange green man who lives in a desolate world" sounds a bit unprofessional. Perhaps consider changing it to "the titular charachter salad fingers, who lives in a desolate world". Erbeilas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's unprofessional. He is indeed a strange green man (and if the sources use that terminology, I think it's the best choice). Also, I'd avoid using the word "titular" in such circumstances -- the honor "King of Jerusalem" has been a titular title for centuries, as there is no longer any land associated with it, while if something were in the title of a work then I would just use "title" e.g. the title character. RexSueciae (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

David Firth History Merge?

Hey guys. Just out of curiosity, is there a way to combine the original history of the David Firth article (the one that became a disambiguation page) with this new version? It probably doesn't matter too much, but I guess if people want to see its history easier it would be a good help.

Also, for whatever reason whenever you search his name on Google, the Wikipedia page shown is the disambiguation page instead of his actual article. I think it might be related to the history change, but is there also a way to fix that? If not, it's fine. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)