Talk:Mr Whoppit

Woppit

If Mr Whoppit is a Woppit, then (partly due to the new Merrythought regeneration) where does the generic Woppit fit, in terms of notability? This blog post contains some further info which could possibly be sourced elsewhere. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of refs, including this, were removed as they're "not RS" (which is a reason that we can't rely on them to prove notability or a contentious claim, but not a reason to exclude them in general). This even went to ANI, but TheRedPenOfDoom chose not to engage in that discussion and the only argument for removing non-RS seemed to come down to, "Things are removable because I want to remove them". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.66.86 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

oh, dear andy, i am pretty sure that "people didnt leave my non reliable sources" is not really a position you wish to base any critique upon. And do you really want me to quote what the third party responses and consensus to that ANI discussion were? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It went to ANI, which to save duplication I've already linked to rather than quoting. Your view garnered no support. You didn't even attempt to defend it yourself. There is still no policy requiring that all sources have to meet RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

since you seem to think what was said there is relevant

• " More stalking, wikihounding and harassment by Andy Dingley, when they get into a disagreement with another user this is fairly standard tactics for him. Werieth"
• "The picture of the bear at a funeral is patently as primary as sources get. I see nothing wrong with that removal. Mangoe "
• "I want to correct some inaccuracies in Andy's report here. ... Bbb23" "that kind of revert is not exempt, but your calling them "blankings" makes him sound like a vandal and again confirms my suspicions about your motives.--Bbb23"
• "It is self-evident that if someone removes a source, she/he is challenging it. Thus, any non-reliable source, as I understand the term, may be removed on sight. That doesn't forbid adding unsourced material, or poor sources; it just forbids complaining about their removal. Howunusual"
• the only statement actually in support of your position "IMO a reasonably bright line here is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Also IAFIU, "challenged" does NOT mean "IDONTLIKEIT":" however that was followed up with *" In addition, Flickr is hardly a usable source in many cases, because what you see and what one shows in a photo is subject to interpretation (WP:RS) hence easily contestable as to how it can support article content. Staszek Lem"

So the ANI which you point to is in fact essentially: ANDY YOU ARE WRONG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone support your claimed point here: "all sources must meet RS", or was the view simply that of our clear policy, that when contentious claims rely on a source, they must rely on a source that meets RS? You are claiming that any source not meeting RS should be removed for that reason alone, whether it is being relied upon or not. There is no support, and still no support, for that view. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ill make a point, none of the "references" that TheRedPenOfDoom removed are valid. Werieth (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. Thank you.

Andy Ill give you once chance to retract your personal attack, I am not socking, nor am I stalking you, this edit pinged me, so I took a look and commented. Again with the personal attacks. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• To 79.70.66.86, as you insist on blanking sections of this page and citing NPA, I've raised it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_on_RedPenOfDoom Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article contain the statement "Gar Wood and his brother George also kept teddy bears tied to their raceboat engines. or is it inappropriate for this article because it is not related to the subject of this article "Mr. Whoppit"?

References

• The statement is irrelevant to the subject of this article. The subject of this article is a teddy bear mascot called "Mr. Whoppit". The Woods bears appear to be named "Teddy" and "Bruin" [1] There is no indication "whoppit" or "woppit". There is no indication that the teddy bear mascots kept by other racers are in any way related to the subject of this article other than WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This article has already been attacked for the childish and non-serious nature of teddy bears. This section gives reasonable context that other boat racers (and Gar Wood was one of the most celebrated) would also be seen and photographed with their "toy bears".

Thankyou for raising this though, as it highlights that the article omits the most famous of the lot, Lord Tod Wadley, who also deserves a mention. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The content seems encyclopedic enough, with the question really being where it should be hosted. Maybe it's WP:UNDUE here and would be more appropriate at Gar Wood... then again perhaps there's scope to create something like Good luck charms and sportspersons, Sportspersons and good luck charms or something (if they are notable topics). -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Or how about Wartime use of teddy bears? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a separate article to bear mascots in general (which probably does work as an article). It is though the crossover between Robin, Merrythought and Campbell, so both the Robin origins and the racing mascot belong and that's why it's here rather than an UNDUE section under Campbell itself. The reason for including it is to refute the suggestion that bears are just too silly and childish to be part of "serious" encyclopedic coverage of Donald Campbell. We're not covering Gar Wood's bear, that could well reach UNDUE, but it's appropriate to convey the message, "Campbell was not alone amongst top-tier racers in persistent or obsessive possession of a child's toy mascot". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

and you are clearly proving the point that it has nothing to do with the actual subject, its merely here because you are slapping together content WP:SYN prove a point about a subject that is not actually the bear WP:COATRACK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Omit. It seems silly to argue over something so inconsequential, but it's nice to be summoned by LegoBot to an RFC that isn't about complicated Middle Eastern politics, the definition of hate speech, or esoteric pedantry about philosophy that even Aristotle would have found boring. This article is about one bear. Other bears are off-topic. They belong in a "see also" section if they're notable enough to have their own articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Re-opening Armbrust's close. I read this as 2:2, i.e. no clear consensus either way. Armbrust claims it's a 3:1 for deletion and has now twice removed it (and the added note on Lord Tod Wadley on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 7:41 am, 22 March 2014, Saturday (19 days ago) (UTC−4)
• I requested a closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#RfC closure review: Mr Whoppit. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 October 2024 and 14 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cramelow (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LesserGoldfinch (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)