Jump to content

Talk:Vikings season 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Season 2 final shot

[edit]

As I wrote. The location is obvious to anyone that has been there and seen it. People pointed it out in May on Reddit and elsewhere. Finding a "reliable" 3rd party source pointing this out would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Sometimes WP is really taking pedantry to new levels... -Hekseuret (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's classic WP:OR. Since the name of the mountain was not mentioned in the episode, adding a name requires support by a reliable source, which Wikipedia editors are not. It's not even clear whether the long shot is an actual image or CGI, another reason why a citation is required. In addition, since the series is a copyrighted work, the first link that you provided is a copyright violation making your first link a LINKVIO. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does me linking to copyrighted images have to do with anything? I didn't even try to find "reliable sources" as you so obsessively ask for. Do I need to explain it even more simple so you can understand? The links were just for comparison so you or anyone else that doesn't believe it was the same location could see the distinctive similarities. The first link was just to show how it was on tv. The second link with actual real life aerial photos of the location. Why does it matter if they did in fact graphically enhance the looks of the mountain to a darker, bleaker and colder look, or if they addedd in the actor onto the mountain with CGI? The mountain features are still pretty distinctive. I guess you didn't even bother more than a brief glance of the pictures, if even that, or you would have seen. Even the other WP article has had it uncontested for a long time, but I guess now you probably are going to remove it from there too... Would you delete an edit, call it original research and demand reliable sources if the location was of Ayers rock or Grand Canyon and also given similar pictures with the exact same point of view as on the show? That is why I call this extreme pedantry. -Hekseuret (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to link to linkvios at all, so you can't use them for comparison. If they've used CGI then it's not actually the location. Your comparison is WP:SYNTH. You need a reliable source to actually state that the location is what you claim it is. It's that simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first link is to 1 single picture that is a screenshot from the show. Which would be considered fair use. It was the first image I found doing an image search. The second link is to several aerial photos, all taken by the person who owns that userpage/picturepage. As far as I was informed this is not a violation of WP:LINKVIO as you claim it to be. Also, since it happens to be a twitter link, you see one of many examples of people pointing out the fact back in May when the episode was first aired, and the second tweet is from a museum in the region where the mountain lies. I think they would know what their own tourist-attraction-mountain looks like.
  2. I ask again, did you honestly look at the pictures for more than 10 seconds, or did you just ignore them altogether based on them being copyright material? Because if you did compare, you would notice the same cracks in the mountainside and angles of the rocks and mountain. And as I asked, why does it matter if they graphically enhanced the image? Yes, they did make it darker and bleaker, but it is still the same basic location.
  3. If you demand source for the location, why didn't you demand source for him being king too? Or why didn't you demand source on the other WP pages where the same fact has been uncontested for months? Just to show you are consistent in your demands, and not just being pedantic on this specific issue. -Hekseuret (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You can't just use an image and claim it to be fair use. It doesn't work that way. The first image is a LINKVIO, whichever way you look at it. There's no problem with the second link but you can't compare those images with the LINKVIO. The question that you asked at WP:CQ was very broad, you didn't provide any specifics and you were only answered by one editor. Regardless of that, it's still original research to compare a CGI image to real images and then add our own opinions to articles. That's classic WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia editors cannot do that. Unverified Twitter accounts are not reliable sources even if they do claim to be from a museum.
  2. It doesn't matter how long I look at the images. Nothing can be added to the article based on our opinions.
  3. Feel free to remove the bit about him being king. He has the sword, but does that make him king? As for "the other WP pages where the same fact has been uncontested for months", I've no idea what you're talking about. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you win. I can't be bothered to search the internet for a link stating what anyone that has been on the mountain location will recognize. -Hekseuret (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being unable to verify content is something we all have to deal with. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in this case it is simple obvious knowledge to anyone that has been at the location. I could provide plenty of links saying it, but none of them would be considered reliable for the pedantic you. And as said, I can't be bothered to crawl through the internet looking for a reliable one. For some strange reason Vikings and that location gives way too many search hits :P If you had looked at the pictures provided for more than 10 seconds instead of shortcutting when you think they are LINKVIO you would see the obvious too. Lots of TV shows enhance the images and/or edit the *skyline* so this is not unique to Vikings or this shot. The basic location is still the same. And since you pointed it out yourself, other WP user(s) disagree it is a LINKVIO. If you want more responses supporting your viewpoint that would have to be your job. I'm giving up WP for a while. -Hekseuret (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop claiming that I'm being pedantic. At best it's uncivil and it doesn't help your argument. Google hits alone are irrelevant. The claim needs to be supported by reliable sources in order to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy. Regarding the image, you're wrong that "other WP user(s) disagree". You've still only had a response from a single user. We can't use that image on Wikipedia without a valid fair-use claim, per our non-free content policy, so we can't use it as a source. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you are and whatever the reason, you still don't get my point, but dismiss/ignore it outright because you

  1. *think* the images are LINKVIO, when they are not, and you still do not admit you were wrong because "I only got one response", but at the same time you couldn't be bothered to answer questions *you* were asked over there.
  2. are so blinded by the scary thought of having something that can't be (easily) verified by *reliable* sources. It can however be easily verified by "non-reliable" sources. You are basically calling everybody that has been there and seen this location with their own eyes as unreliable. And you're calling everybody that bothered to take the time to compare the two image links as unreliable.

I never tried to add these links as a source into the actual page. You couldn't even answer me straight out if you yourself had looked at and compared the images for more than 10 seconds. And if you can't be bothered to read the rest I wrote, then I'm certainly not going to point it out just so you can remove the same info from other pages. Call yourself whatever you want. As I wrote on my talkpage in response to you, it is editors like you that make me loathe even trying to add stuff on WP. So give yourself a big pat on your own back because you won another battle. (And you're probably going to add another remark just so you can get the final word.) -Hekseuret (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the policy the image is a linkvio. You have one opinion for and one opinion against that and you can't claim that I am wrong based on that. I wasn't aware that I had not answered any questions. That you never tried to add these links as a source is irrelevant. Linkvios are not allowed anywhere, including talk pages. I have definitely responded regarding a comparison. At best it's WP:SYNTH and that hasn't changed. You're just arguing the same thing over and over. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How ironic. You drop the WP:DEADHORSE link at me just so you could get the final words. Just like you couldn't keep shut when I tried closing it down earlier. Besides, like it or not, I was explaining why I called you pedantic. -Hekseuret (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vikings_season_2&oldid=1216344946"