Talk:The Great British Bake Off series 12
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Great British Bake Off series 12 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Freya as Favorite in Week 1?
[edit]Since I've seen this get reverted (and then reverted myself later). What is the info on whether Freya was a Judge's Favorite in week 1?
Results summary OR
[edit]To me the categories of bakers favorite/least favorite seem far less clear-cut than the simple star baker/elimination selections (which are explicitly named) and as such should probably go unless they have actual referencing to support them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Each episode of the show involves a segment near the end where the judges and presenters discuss who is in danger of leaving and who may win star baker. Names that are mentioned as in danger of being eliminated but make it through to the next week have been marked as "one of the judges' least favourite bakers that week" while those under consideration for star baker but do not win it are "one of the judges' favourite bakers that week." This color coding is in use for the Results summary section of every season of Bake Off so far. Removing this color coding makes this article inconsistent with other seasons. Molnig (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. The occasional disagreements in the article sort themselves out, particularly once the episodes are released in the US on Fridays and the number of eyeballs increases. All that appears to have happened here is that an editor was limiting favorites to those raised by Prue and Paul, but it's pretty usual that Noel or Matt will be party to the discussion as well. A change such as you made is draconian in light of a minor problem, and needs consensus to implement. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly all the season articles need serious work and a much higher standard of referencing, so I don't think this is draconian at all. Where are the secondary sources to demonstrate a) this is true, and b) it's worth mentioning? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want with secondary sources. This table and all of it's color coding is directly pulled from each episode itself. Maybe the wording is a problem? If you mean there isn't a reference for a baker literally being the judges' least favourite, then perhaps the wording should be changed to "Baker was considered for elimination" or "Baker was considered for Star Baker" instead. But that's hardly grounds for stripping the colors out entirely and is another conversation. As for whether it's worth mentioning on the Wiki page, mentioning which bakers may be eliminated or presented with Star Baker is enough to get it's own segment in the show, so clearly it's of some importance. It's a competition show. Bakers that did well and bakers that were in danger of elimination is the central theme. And the system has been maintained across every series of the show by all the different contributors to these articles, so I would think they all agree it's worth mentioning at least on some level. There's twelve years of precedent here to maintain the color coding. I was watching the most recent episode the other night and looked up this article, curious to be reminded of how some of the bakers had done the previous week. Seeing all the coding removed instead was enough to motivate me to make this account in the first place to correct the issue.Molnig (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policies focus on verifiable information and due weight. Secondary sources (aka sources that aren't the show itself, or stuff published by the show's creators, etc.) are to be prioritized over primary sources, and used to demonstrate due weight. We very rarely allow the show to cite itself, and we should be looking to other sources to see what information is useful to include. Are there reliable, secondary sources breaking this material out in such a way, or is this basically just fancruft that belongs on a fan wiki, not here? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Neither of your links to Wikipedia policy indicate that a show can't be the citation itself. The article on reliable sources says this of primary sources: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." When the judges are shown, on the show, to explicitly name the people that may be eliminated or may win Star Baker, that does not require additional analysis or specialized knowledge to interpret. It's a competition show, and the judges have made a statement that someone is in danger of being eliminated. That is a simple, factual statement. When an article for a sitcom television episode is written, is a secondary source required for the plot summary section of the article? Performance of the bakers, when a round table segment with the judges makes explicit factual statements, is straightforward information summarizing the events of the episode. This is not based off of periodic comments throughout the episode, analyzed by some unknown criteria to judge a contestants performance. This is direct quotes from the judges.Molnig (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the ample disagreements one finds in the edit history for this page alone, it's not an uncontentious, factual statement with no confusion as to what is meant. We do require secondary sources for contentious points such as plot summaries if similar arguments happen. Because we're about verifiability, not truth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Primary sources are allowed if the information can be "verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." However being an educated person with access to the primary source is not a requirement to make a Wikipedia account or edit an article. I can't speak to why edits have been done by people I don't know and if their intentions were to convey accurate information or instead relay a personal favorite. I do know that the judges specifically mention, explicitly by name, who is in danger of leaving and who is in consideration for Star Baker. That is certainly verifiable by anyone watching the episodes, which I'm increasingly believing you have not. You seem quite hellbent on enforcing rules you believe you understand and are applicable here without demonstrating any evidence that you have viewed or understand the source material. I have presented what I can as evidence that the information is verifiable and that, as a user rather than an editor, it was helpful and relevant information that I came to the article looking for. If you still believe that strongly that the information is not appropriate, I won't continue to argue. But I believe very firmly that you'll be making the article less valuable and less informative as a result. Molnig (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policies focus on verifiable information and due weight. Secondary sources (aka sources that aren't the show itself, or stuff published by the show's creators, etc.) are to be prioritized over primary sources, and used to demonstrate due weight. We very rarely allow the show to cite itself, and we should be looking to other sources to see what information is useful to include. Are there reliable, secondary sources breaking this material out in such a way, or is this basically just fancruft that belongs on a fan wiki, not here? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you want with secondary sources. This table and all of it's color coding is directly pulled from each episode itself. Maybe the wording is a problem? If you mean there isn't a reference for a baker literally being the judges' least favourite, then perhaps the wording should be changed to "Baker was considered for elimination" or "Baker was considered for Star Baker" instead. But that's hardly grounds for stripping the colors out entirely and is another conversation. As for whether it's worth mentioning on the Wiki page, mentioning which bakers may be eliminated or presented with Star Baker is enough to get it's own segment in the show, so clearly it's of some importance. It's a competition show. Bakers that did well and bakers that were in danger of elimination is the central theme. And the system has been maintained across every series of the show by all the different contributors to these articles, so I would think they all agree it's worth mentioning at least on some level. There's twelve years of precedent here to maintain the color coding. I was watching the most recent episode the other night and looked up this article, curious to be reminded of how some of the bakers had done the previous week. Seeing all the coding removed instead was enough to motivate me to make this account in the first place to correct the issue.Molnig (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly all the season articles need serious work and a much higher standard of referencing, so I don't think this is draconian at all. Where are the secondary sources to demonstrate a) this is true, and b) it's worth mentioning? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. The occasional disagreements in the article sort themselves out, particularly once the episodes are released in the US on Fridays and the number of eyeballs increases. All that appears to have happened here is that an editor was limiting favorites to those raised by Prue and Paul, but it's pretty usual that Noel or Matt will be party to the discussion as well. A change such as you made is draconian in light of a minor problem, and needs consensus to implement. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)