Talk:Stuart Humphryes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:58, 22 August 2018

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 5 March 2016 by reviewer 333-blue (talk · contribs).

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Daily Mail

Just curious - is there a blanket ban on mentioning the words "Daily Mail" on Wikipedia now? I see a mini editing war going on in the page's history were a user has mentioned that one of Babelcolour's Tweets prompted an article in the Daily Mail and linked to that article. Another user came along and deleted that link and any subsequent mention of the Daily Mail. Now, I understand Wikipedia recommends not linking the the Mail because it is an unreliable source and, even though in this instance, it wasn't being used as a citation to source a fact but was rather the very fact itself, I can nevertheless understand why the link was removed, but not the mention of the newspaper. The next day another user came along (or maybe the same original poster, because they weren't logged in) and re-added the information about the Daily Mail article but sensibly didn't include a link to it. And then the editor who had excised it returned to the page and deleted mention of the newspaper again. This seems wrong to me. It is not a controversial fact the paper ran the story. It is a fact and a verifiable one. Stating "this lead to the Daily Mail newspaper (or Mail Online) running a story" is a fact and I don't think facts should be censored on Wikipedia. The editor in question hasn't explained their reasoning, can anyone else?

info box

Reverted infobox template from 'Artist' to 'Person'. This is no reflection on the subject but to resolve practical limitations of the template. 'Artist' substitutes "alma mater" for the 'Person' template's "other names", but surely in this particular case the subject's school is far less pertinent than the fact he is best known by another name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaotic Galaxy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error

Hello. I'm the subject of this article and I've spotted an error. In the 'Colourisation process' section it states "It consequently took Humphryes 18 months to recolourise key frames for 'The Mind of Evil' episode one", which is quite misleading. The time between commencement and the delivery date was, indeed, 18 months, but in reality I downed tools for 5 months between December 2011 and May 2012 because it was believed a colour copy of the episode had been found. This turned out to be a false alarm and so I resumed work, but it does mean that it actually only took me 13 months work to colourise the episode. Since I don't think that particular fact is reported anywhere on-line I can't provide a citation, so I'm just adding it to the talk page, for reference. Thank you. Stuart. BabelColour (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babelcolour Pseudonym

The opening paragraph says "He is more widely known by his alias "Babelcolour". I was going to change that to a less dogmatic "He is widely known by his alias Babelcolour" because whether it is more, or equal or less is up for discussion. It does alter the sentence in a fundamental way though, so I thought I'd ask here if it would be a contentious change?Thecurryman2004 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- can't say whether he is or isn't, but "more widely" does sound clumsy. FSchoenfelder (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this person notable?

Is colourising Dr Who really a reason to add someone to an encyclopaedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny beets (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines do explain "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". And that's the crux. Within a niche interest group the name Babelcolour is very well known, his colourisation work has been influential, and the results regularly lauded. There are numerous interviews and reviews and recommendations for his work in genre magazines, websites, podcasts, from the BBC, Radio Times, Guardian, SFX Magazine, Starburst Magazine, the Doctor Who Magazine... well, it's all in the subject's article. Many people may never get to hear of him, but those who know his work consider him extremely notable in his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.93.254 (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't really understand why a notability template has been added to the page? The article was up for merger or deletion last March and a talk page determined it should stay with a consensus to keep on March 12th. Since then the article has been enlarged and improved, elevated from stub class to start class and has over 50 sources cited. How can it now be back up for merger or deletion again so soon? And by an unregistered visitor? Someone should make the bold edit to remove the template as it is unnecessary unless we are expected to go through the whole talk page process yet again for no reason. Thecurryman2004 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do agree with curryman2004, I don't want to arbitrarily remove the original editor's notability template out of courtesy, without first inviting him/her to make their case. Unfortunately they were not logged in, so there's no user-name to invite to the talk page, but we should give 73.61.19.196 the chance to explain why they've added the template.Pupsbunch (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you propose to wait? Chaotic Galaxy (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Pupsbunch (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stuart Humphryes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://babel-fish.kostamojen.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{WikiProject Articles for creation|class=start|ts=20160305121506|reviewer=333-blue|oldid=704691811}}
 {{Old AfD multi | date = 12 March 2016 | result = '''keep''' | page = Stuart Humphryes}}
+==Daily Mail==
+Just curious - is there a blanket ban on mentioning the words "Daily Mail" on Wikipedia now? I see a mini editing war going on in the page's history were a user has mentioned that one of Babelcolour's Tweets prompted an article in the Daily Mail and linked to that article. Another user came along and deleted that link and any subsequent mention of the Daily Mail. Now, I understand Wikipedia recommends not linking the the Mail because it is an unreliable source and, even though in this instance, it wasn't being used as a citation to source a fact but was rather the very fact itself, I can nevertheless understand why the link was removed, but not the mention of the newspaper. The next day another user came along (or maybe the same original poster, because they weren't logged in) and re-added the information about the Daily Mail article but sensibly didn't include a link to it.  And then the editor who had excised it returned to the page and deleted mention of the newspaper again. This seems wrong to me. It is not a controversial fact the paper ran the story. It is a fact and a verifiable one. Stating "this lead to the Daily Mail newspaper (or Mail Online) running a story" is a fact and I don't think facts should be censored on Wikipedia. The editor in question hasn't explained their reasoning, can anyone else?
 ==info box==