Talk:Paul Finch

Third party sources
Unfortunately I made the mistake of drawing attention to my work and was critical of editors deleting stuff and just being critical. It's like the Eye of Sauron - try not to draw to let Mordor notice you. My mistake. Now the deletions have started and the first critical banner has appeared.S.tollyfield (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Clean-up templates like the third-party added by  are intended to helpful. They point out potential problems and often are linked to special pages to alert other editors that help is needed. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles are edited collaboratively over time and are not owned by any particular editor or group of editors. So, any editor may add a clean-up template if they feel it is needed. Such templates, however, are not automatically permanent. Once the problem has been corrected, or if it's determined the template was unnecessary in the first place, then it can be removed.
 * FWIW, I agree with Theroadislong. This article relies on too many primary or questionable sources. Articles which rely on too many primary sources may have their neutrality questioned by other editors. Moreover, user generated sources such as IMDb pages, blogs, personal websites, etc. are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, particularly for articles about living persons per WP:BLP, because the what is written on such sites is typically not subject to sufficient editorial control.
 * It's OK to ask an editor why a template was added, but the burden of proof for finding reliable sources to support statements made in the article falls upon the person adding the material. Other editors may be able to help, and many times they usually do. However, if what is written cannot be verified through reliable sources, then it can be removed when the problem cannot be fixed - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So let's be clear - although it's not "my work" - it's still my problem. Do any of you have any interest in the actual subject of Paul Finch? Again another threat of deletion. I do not believe this page would have got any attention if I had not expressed a mildly critical view of Wikipedia. My concern is that you are more concerned with the rules than with content. I made the point that I was discouraged and get nothing but negative feedback. There is no assessment of the page. Is it still a stub - Start Class - what? You are all so keen to delete stuff that a basic heading has been deleted which I will put back.S.tollyfield (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I was not suggesting that page should be deleted. I was only trying to point out that the cleanup tags are meant to be helpful, and they suggest ways that articles might be improved. The article is nobody's problem; Anyone is free to try and improve it. However, any thing added by an editor can be challenged by another editor and removed if deemed necessary. Excluding obvious cases of obvious cases of vandalism, this typically occurs when the material added is not properly supported by a reliable source. In such cases, usually the best thing to do is to try and discuss things on the article's talk page to see what other editors think and find a solution that can be supported by all through consensus. Per WP:UNSOURCED, the burden of proof falls upon the person adding the information; they have to convince others that the information belongs in the article. Of course, you can skip all of this and simply re-add material that was deleted, but doing almost always leads to the information being removed again. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest renaming this section to "Clean up templates" per WP:TPG since that seems to be what it is section is primarily discussing. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Bare URLs
This article has quite a number of bare urls being used as references. Bare URLs are not really desirable because they allow the possibility of link rot. These references should be filled in as much as possible per WP:CITEHOW. There are a few ways this can be done, but I personally think ciatation templates is the easiest. I've added a Bare URLs template to the article just to make others aware of the issue. It can be removed once the bare URLs have been fixed. Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciative. Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Children's animation
I think it would be much better to write this section as straight prose per WP:USEPROSE than using a bulleted list. There are only four items mentioned and these could be explained in a few sentences. For example, a very rough suggestion might be as follows:"Finch's early scripts were for various children animation projects. He is credited as being a writer on Little Hippos: Hippos Ahoy (1998), Fix and Foxi: A Knight to Remember (1998), Meeow!: Maise in the Rainforest (1999), and Nora and the Magic Tree (2002)." Sources then could be added after each item in support per WP:INTEGRITY. Better sources are needed, however, in support of this section. None of the three currently cited seem to satisfy WP:RS. The "Meeow" and "Fixi and Foxi" sources make no mention of Finch at all and, therefore, are problematic per WP:RSCONTEXT. The YouTube source does refer to Finch's involvement as a writer in the closing credits, but linking to this might not be acceptable per WP:YOUTUBE because of a possible copyright violation. It would be much better if third-party reliable sources could be found to support this section; If no such sources exist, then maybe the information is not worth inclusion per WP:BLPSOURCES. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the references in this section verify the content, they do not mention Finch? Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for double checking . The YouTube clip does credit him as a writer, but I think this might be a possible copvio per WP:YOUTUBE and per WP:ELNEVER. The two other sources make no mention of Finch at all so they should be removed them per WP:RSCONTEXT. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The new source Paul Finch does make reference to Finch, but it seems like a primary source to me because it is from the agency which represents Finch, so I'm not sure if this is OK per WP:BLPPRIMARY. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - does this mean you don't believe his agent? Who else is going to keep an accurate record of an author's credits? Anyway for a moment there I was prepared to believe that things were okay and Wikipedia was not the petty place I was thinking it was. I can see that there are now a number of positive edits on this page. But there is always someone who just has to get in there and carry on deleting stuff. Now it is the image Paul Finch Silhouette.png which I put some time into creating. Of course I have appealed for the reasons I give, but I do not want to have to be spending my time constantly fighting Big Brother when it could be used more constructively. Who wants to contribute to Wikipedia when the knee-jerk reaction is just to delete stuff constantly and let the minnows try and fight to put it back?S.tollyfield (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the comment. It's not really a question of what we as editors believe to be true; it's what can be verified through reliable third-party sources. Material published, including websites, by Finch's agent(s) could be considered to be a primary source and Wikipedia places limits on how such sources may be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I was only asking for the opinions of others. If you check, I didn't remove the source or any of the information cited. I was just discussing it's reliability per WP:WPNOTRS.
 * As for the photos, I didn't remove any from the article. However, please try and understand that Wikipedia has pretty strict rules regarding image usage; Anything considered to be a copyright violation is almost always immediately removed. Derivatives of another person's work are not considered to be one's "own work", so copyright issues may exist. You are correct about photos on Commons being there for people to use (as long as they are properly licensed). However, adding photos is no different from adding content in that the context they are being used needs to be considered per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. When two editors disagree about the use of a particular photo, the best thing to do is try and discuss things on the article's talk page and find something that is acceptable all around.
 * Finally, please try to remember that article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. For sure, these discussions sometimes get heated and editors sometimes get frustrated, but article talk pages shouldn't be used for commenting on the behavior of other editors, or on the inequalities of Wikipedia. I guess this all sounds a little "preachy", but it will make things easier to discuss if we stick to commenting on policy, guidelines and content and how they relate to this article. Sometimes when things get really frustrating, I go walk the dog and get some fresh air. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you are doing your best to be conciliatory and I appreciate that, but to be frank I'm still unhappy. I do not see any discussion before the images from Wikimedia were just deleted. And you are all too quick to rush to negative judgements. A minor example in Children's Animation - the reference to the episode of Meeow is said to not be in the citation from the editor's page. Well it is, but the agent has got it slightly wrong. Maisie Mac is Meeow, which is obvious from the Meeow page on the link. Something that would also be clear if you had left in the references to the programmes in question, but you have not because they do not contain references to Finch himself. No but they do fill in extra detail about programmes he has created. You say we have discussions, but your default position is always to delete.S.tollyfield (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not remove the link in question; It was removed by with. I understand it can be confusing when multiple editors are working on the same page. So, it's pretty much always a good idea to carefully check the article's edit history and provide relevant diffs when referring to specific editors making certain edits because it helps avoid confusion and mixups. Regarding the source itself, sources are supposed to directly support the information they are being used to cite per WP:RSCONTEXT because it allows the reader to go to the source and verify that what is written in the article is actually supported by what is written in the source. The link you have re-added is fine for an article about Maisie Mac or Meow; It does not, however, make any mention of Finch, so it cannot be used to verify his involvement with the show at all. We as editors are not supposed to add our own interpretations of what is written in sources to articles per WP:NOR; We are also not supposed to synthesize bits of information from multiple sources into something that is not explicitly said in any of the sources per WP:SYN. IMHO, I don't think there was anything wrong with the Theroadislong's edit, but my opinion is just my opinion and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. So, please feel free to ask about the source at Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard and whether it's use is appropriate in this case. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes why are multiple editors all working on this page at the same time? Have they all suddenly got an interest in Paul Finch? I'm sorry but you will no doubt forgive me my feelings of paranoiaS.tollyfield (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @S.tollyfield:   I have my moved response to the above to User talk:S.tollyfield because I think it is more appropriate for a user talk page than an article talk page. If you would like to respond, then please do so there. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
Speaking of knee-jerk deletions...2 perfectly harmless and free images were deleted from this page, despite their obvious relevance to the books in discussion on the page. What is Wikipedia Commons there for? Answer: amongst other things to provide a free resource to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I spent some time looking through Wikipedia Commons to find appropriate images to improve the appearance of the page and someone just comes along and deletes them. How is this helpful and constructive? They are free - whoever uploaded them wants them to be used. What is the problem??S.tollyfield (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What images are you talking about? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The images were the original versions of Red Sands Fort and Mort d'Arthur - someone did not like them and deleted them. I took the opportunity to put back slightly different versions of them. But now someone else has deleted all the book covers from the page - which other editors did not object to. It seems if you leave things long enough every illustration you put on a page will be deleted by someone who objects to it!! So how can you ever get a consensus!?!S.tollyfield (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss
Hello, S.Tollyfield! I just want to welcome you. Also, about those "quick deletions": Very annoying they are, I am sure. Now each editor has a different way of handling what seem to be problematic entries. Sometimes he or she will just put a WP:Template in the text and hope that another editor will make a correction. Others (I am in this class) will often simply remove the offending word, phrase, sentence, paragraph or artwork (with an Edit Summary stating the reason) and then wait for another editor to put it back. Then, if any editor feels like it, he or she will open a discussion about the problem on the Talk Page. This is known as WP: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Editor 1 is BOLD and makes an edit or a deletion; Editor 2 then REVERTS the deletion, following which anybody can open a DISCUSSION on the Talk Page about the change. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus. It sounds complicated, but it often goes smoothly enough if everybody keeps his or her head. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of images
The image showing the cover of Nora and the Magic Tree is copyrighted, and can be used by Wikipedia only under these circumstances:

Copyrighted / This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or their heirs. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. . . Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Non-free content for more information.

I have removed it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Biography
The fact of Finch's parentage is, it seems to me, not important enough to feature in the lead but it would be well served by a new "Biography" section, which I created but which was reverted by User:S.tollyfield with an Edit Summary stating "Delete Biography section - why put this in just to put that it needs expanding!!! Who is going to do that? I'm not." I put the section back so that we can look at it while we discuss it here. The question to be resolved is: "Should there be a new section for biographical details?" They are sadly lacking in the current version. Thanks for taking part. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole article is a biography so having a "biography" section is redundant. The standard sections in bios for these details are "Early life and education" and "Personal life".--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor references Comment
That Finch wrote one episode of Meeow! is NOT supported by the two references. The first reference a primary source, calls it MAISIEMAC: MAISIE IN THE RAINFOREST, the second reference doesn't mention Finch at all? User:S.tollyfield says "I've read the comments, but together they do" ….I'm afraid they clearly don't.Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I stated above in "Children's animation", I agree with 's assessment. Synthesizing information found in multiple references into something that is not explicitly stated in any of those references is not something we as editors should being doing per WP:SYN. The wording in articles should reflect what is explicitly written in reliable sources per WP:RSCONTEXT; Editors should not be trying to mold and shape sources to match what is written in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Note: I suggest combining this section with "Children's animation" above so as to keep all discussion related to these sources in one place to make it easier to follow from start to finish. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC))

Possible sources
I googled "Paul Finch Lancashire" to see what popped up. I found some possible sources that might be useful, but not sure. Anyway, I'll just list them below for discussion. Does anyone think any of these can be used per WP:BLP. I think no. 5 should be OK, but not sure about the others. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Discover Author Paul Finch;
 * 2) Paul Finch. An action-packed combination of possibilities;
 * 3) Krimi-Couch-Interview mit Paul Finch;
 * 4) Paul Finch interviewed by David McWilliam;
 * 5) 'Heck' of a time for author Paul;
 * 6) Paul Finch - Mädchenjäger; and
 * 7) Interview: Paul Finch on genre writing, Part I.
 * Here's some more I found.
 * Paul Finch, Interviewed by Neil McRobert;
 * Interview: Paul Finch on genre writing, Part II;
 * DOCTOR WHO WRITER, PAUL FINCH BOOK & AUDIO DRAMA SIGNINGS;
 * Wigan writer's delight at Cannes debut film premiere;
 * The Devil's Rock: Interview with Paul Champion;
 * The Devils Rock Press Kit;
 * Brian Finch; and
 * Author makes history with biggest ever pre-order
 * Sorry for just posting links and leaving the editing to others, but real life is busy at the moment. The BBC source (no. 4) is definitely reliable and looks promising. Source no. 8 also looks good. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are two more I found: Wigan author puts a chill in Cannes, and Avon signs five from Finch. I've used the Manchester Evening News article to support the fact that Finch has two children, but it maybe it can also be used as a source for more detail about Finch's police career and Finch's father. Is there anyway to make the quote "'To be honest, nothing in written horror is as dark and grim as the real experience of being a copper in Manchester,' he says. 'That's real life. This is fantasy.'" in the article? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Finch. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030040410/http://grayfriarpress.com/catalogue/index.html to http://www.grayfriarpress.com/catalogue/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161110192543/http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/british-fantasy-awards/the-british-fantasy-awards-a-short-history/ to http://www.britishfantasysociety.org/british-fantasy-awards/the-british-fantasy-awards-a-short-history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)