Talk:Ellie Moon/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ellie Moon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
removal of tags
Hey, Alinamackie! I see you removed these tags I just placed. Let's discuss. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- ok Alinamackie (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm from Toronto, Canada and this is a well-known artist, I've seen two of her plays, don't vandalise by claiming it's self published and tagging it that way Alinamackie (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Alinamackie: This is the place to discuss why you think the tags are not needed, rather than in-text on the article itself. Please don't remove the tags until it's resolved. Note that reliable sources are needed to support claims on Wikipedia; personal experience or knowledge is not sufficient to satisfy verifiability requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- my mistake - the sources are all being flagged as not reliable and this is not true. I work in Canadian theatre, these are reputable sources Alinamackie (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- it doesn't get much more reliable than the official web page of the film festival, or the theatre company, or the publisher. The person tagging those are unreliable is trolling this page. Alinamackie (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Valereee is not trolling, she is trying to ensure the page aligns with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, which require independent reliable sources. Please focus on trying to improve the referencing rather than edit warring over the tags and accusing Valereee of bad faith. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding - how much much independent and reliable could a source be than the official major institution's webpage? Reviews are more reliable than that, as a source? Alinamackie (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- if the assertion of the wiki page is that a film is available on these platforms and the sources are the page with the film available on it, how would that be missing a source? I'd love to better understand Alinamackie (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- So, there are multiple bits of policy we need to address. I'd suggest that you read to start off with WP:independent and WP:RS. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- removing factual information with reliable sources does fit the definition of vandalism I see Alinamackie (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reliable sources that aren't wp:independent aren't kosher her except for noncontroversial facts. Read that link, too. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have read about independent publishers now - I do believe it is in bad faith to imagine that a film festival isn't independent, or a theatre magazine, or a national newspaper, or amazon, or audible, I could go on Alinamackie (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- A film festival where the film was shown is an affiliated, and therefore not independent, source. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- that's factually inaccurate - do you not understand the concept of independent film? Alinamackie (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the concept of an independent reliable source. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- and then for example, the last line in the career section - we have the audible page and the publisher's page. How are those not independent of the artist who narrated the audiobook? Alinamackie (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think you don't lol. What sources do you accept for TV and film credits if not IMDB and not links to the actual films on platforms like Amazon and Apple? Alinamackie (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- We accept things like the globe and mail. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Audible and the publisher are selling the product. Not independent. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- right but all we are asserting is that the product exists and Moon played the role specified in it. She doesn't have any affiliation with audible or the publisher. So the audiobook would need to be reviewed in the globe and mail? This seems in bad faith. Alinamackie (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that the simple fact the product exists doesn't mean it's noteworthy for inclusion. As I wrote in many, many edit summaries and bsn explanations, we need to see someone else discussing it in some independent rs. Valereee (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- You've now accused me of bad faith multiple times. Please read WP:ABF and WP:AGF. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have read it. Alinamackie (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- So then you understand that making such accusations baselessly -- in this case, with two experienced editors telling you it's not bad faith -- is wp:disruptive editing? Valereee (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- no - I don't agree. I think it isn't baseless, I'm afraid. I'm sorry to offend you. But I think it is reaching to say that that proving that someone starred in a film that went to one of the most major film festivals in the country isn't enough, because we must prove why that was notable in their career? Alinamackie (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- So then you understand that making such accusations baselessly -- in this case, with two experienced editors telling you it's not bad faith -- is wp:disruptive editing? Valereee (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have read it. Alinamackie (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- right but all we are asserting is that the product exists and Moon played the role specified in it. She doesn't have any affiliation with audible or the publisher. So the audiobook would need to be reviewed in the globe and mail? This seems in bad faith. Alinamackie (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think you don't lol. What sources do you accept for TV and film credits if not IMDB and not links to the actual films on platforms like Amazon and Apple? Alinamackie (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- that's factually inaccurate - do you not understand the concept of independent film? Alinamackie (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- A film festival where the film was shown is an affiliated, and therefore not independent, source. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- removing factual information with reliable sources does fit the definition of vandalism I see Alinamackie (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- So, there are multiple bits of policy we need to address. I'd suggest that you read to start off with WP:independent and WP:RS. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- if the assertion of the wiki page is that a film is available on these platforms and the sources are the page with the film available on it, how would that be missing a source? I'd love to better understand Alinamackie (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding - how much much independent and reliable could a source be than the official major institution's webpage? Reviews are more reliable than that, as a source? Alinamackie (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Valereee is not trolling, she is trying to ensure the page aligns with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, which require independent reliable sources. Please focus on trying to improve the referencing rather than edit warring over the tags and accusing Valereee of bad faith. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- it doesn't get much more reliable than the official web page of the film festival, or the theatre company, or the publisher. The person tagging those are unreliable is trolling this page. Alinamackie (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- my mistake - the sources are all being flagged as not reliable and this is not true. I work in Canadian theatre, these are reputable sources Alinamackie (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
We must show why it's worth discussing in this article. It's definitely worth mentioning if even one independent RS discusses it at length. But not everything she's ever done that has been mentioned in a blog or interview or a supplied bio is worth mentioning. She literally could say she walks her dog twice a day. Unless it's been discussed in independent RS, we consider it trivia. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- And FWIW, you can disagree with my explanation of baseless accusations of bad faith, but I really strongly advise you to stop. I tend to be hard to offend, but other admins may be less lenient. Valereee (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)