Talk:The Worldwide Privacy Tour

Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies pertaining to Verifiability, No Original Research, and Synthesis.

While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made by the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers, explicitly mention the reference.

In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE and WP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT, the plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme. This includes such minutiae as scene-by-scene breakdowns, technical information or detailed explanations of individual gags or lines of dialogue (although running gags that serve as as recurring motif or theme may be included if they form a signficant aspect of the plot or theme, and can be incorporated into the synopsis in a manner that isn't extraneous).

If you're new to Wikipedia, please click on the wikilinked policy pages above to familiarize yourself with this site's policies and guidelines.

Lets resolve this title war!

There are reliable sources for both! I think we should include both as valid titles, or include one but add another as a {{efn}} foot note. DreamyDude20042 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The title is all messed up all over the place. Some sources have a hyphen but most (including the official press release) don't, and there are even some sources (including one Tweet from Comedy Central) that leave out the word "The" and just call it "Worldwide Privacy Tour". Instead of making multiple references to all of the variants, the most reliable source should be the official press release from Comedy Central which has the listing "The Worldwide Privacy Tour". I do think your efn suggestion might be the best alternative. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructiveness San :D DreamyDude20042 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This would need to be archived, but, according to South Park Studios (web subsidiary of Comedy Central), the title is "The Worldwide Privacy Tour". I would say the website listing is a more reliable source than a press release (especially given the nature of the show's production schedule), and would be a preferable citation, even if they are in agreement:

https://southpark.cc.com/ 24.151.103.37 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Reference to "Magical Mystery Tour"

Very often, episode pages like this would include cultural references for things like the title itself and an original song in the episode that is a major element of the episode. In this case, the title of the episode, the "Worldwide Privacy Tour" song (which eats up an entire minute of the episode's runtime), and the themes of the episode derived from the montage set to the song "Worldwide Privacy Tour" (including many of the angles and shots within the montage) are a clear and patently obvious reference to The Beatles' 1967 album and song "Magical Mystery Tour". Thoughts on including this reference? 24.151.103.37 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any independent reliable source out there that confirms this that we can use as a cited source for this. No matter how "obvious" it may be to a viewer, statements in WP should be backed up with a RS. There are a couple of blogs and wikis out there, but those definitely do not qualify as a RS. See South Park: Post Covid for an example of how pop culture references should always be cited. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@24.151.103.37: Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia. As SanAnMan mentioned above, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

With regard to material about the content of narrative works that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and it must explicitly mention the information in relation to the work in question. Relying instead on personal observation or interpretation is referred to on Wikipedia as original research. One type of original research is the use of primary sources to form conclusions not explicitly in those sources, which is called synthesis. This is also mentioned in the banner at the top of these episode article talk pages, like the one at the top of this one. Let us know if you have come across sources for what you described, or if you have any other questions or suggestions. Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Royal family description

I've noticed a 'little' back-and-forth going on, concerning 'how' to describe Harry's family. Perhaps "...royal family of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the other Commonwealth realms..." would suffice? Let's keep in mind, this is about a cartoon episode :) GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: & @Nightscream:, I begun this 'discussion' for the benefit of you both. Work it out, here. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My response to a message that Miesianiacal left on my talk page pretty much summmarizes my position on the matter. If anyone else wants to chime in on the matter, feel free to do so. Let me know if you prefer not to do so there, or what. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your position is, "I think it's bloat". That, as I pointed out in my last edit summary in the article, is just a personal opinion. The end result in the article, though, is something demonstrably false: your wording claims the Sussexes stepped back as working members of the British Royal Family only, meaning they're still working members of the Royal Family of Canada and those of the remaining Commonwealth Realms. You made some assertion about this episode being a parody of the Sussexes recusing themselves from their roles as senior members of the British Royal Family, specifically. Yet, there's literally nothing in the episode to verify that. So, we're back to you relying on your personal preference, which isn't a guiding principle of Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You say "just a personal opinion", as if some implication to the contrary on my part was that it was fact. It wasn't. Of course it's an opinion. And when we have diferning ones, we employ evidence and/or reasoning to argue which one is more well-reasoned, and we call in other editors to see which position they agree with.

If you truly believe that summarizing the passage as I have is not reasonable, that doing so would leave readers to think the passage is indicating that "they're still working members of the Royal Family of Canada" (something you claim is "demonstrable"--I'd like to see how you can demonstrate this), and you think a preponderance of other editors will agree with you with this, then we'll call for a consensus discussion. Is that what you want?

"...there's literally nothing in the episode to verify that."

Verifiability is satisified when material is supported by reliable, secondary sources. The passage in question is indeed supported by such sources cited in the article. Again, if you think other editors will agree with you on this, then we'll ask them. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"What I think is reasonable" does not trump "what is factual". The claim, implied or not, that the Sussexes downgraded themselves only within the UK's Royal Family is factually inaccurate. Your other claim that the episode spoofs the Sussexes' quitting as working members of just the British Royal Family is not supported by the content of the episode, no matter how many times you say it is; all you're really doing is gradually turning the suspicion you haven't watched the episode into a certainty. The word "British" isn't even used once in the script. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, you both might consider opening a RFC on this matter? I'll leave that decision in your hands. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"The claim, implied or not, that the Sussexes downgraded themselves only within the UK's Royal Family..."

The passage does not say "only". It merely summarizes the fact in question. Adding every level of detail, in every article that even mentions the event in passing, is not necessary.

"Your other claim that the episode spoofs the Sussexes' quitting as working members of just the British Royal Family is not supported by the content of the episode, no matter how many times you say it is.."

I never said it was.

I said it is supported by the secondary sources cited in the article, which is precisely what is required by Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability. You can see this if you scroll up and my read my message. The episode itself is not a secondary source, it's a primary source, and for information that is interprtive, analytical, or evaluative, we need secondary sources (as it states in the yellow box at the top of this page), which is why those sources have been cited for that info.

The subject of a work of satire does not need to be established in-story. It only needs reliable, secondary sources, which the information in the article indeed has. Since you've accumulated over 43,500 edits here since 2008, you should already know this, yet you not only speak as if you don't, but when I bring it up, you ignore this point, preferring instead of falsely state that I claimed something that I in fact never did, and indicate that I said it many "times". Why is this?

Since we appear to be at the agree-to-disagree threshold, and since you don't seem to be willing or capable to directly respond to the things I've actually said regarding policy, preferring instead of fabricate things that I have not said, I will ask another editor to weigh in on this matter. Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal:

With this edit of yours to the article, you are now editing during an ongoing, unresolved editorial dispute, which is considered edit warring, and a blockable offense. Do you dispute this? Nightscream (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

False. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal:

Also, it should be pointed out that the opening line of the Megxit article reads:

On 8 January 2020, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, announced on Instagram their decision to "step back as 'senior' members" of the British royal family,[(citation)] split their time between the United Kingdom and North America, and become financially independent.

That's it. "British royal family." Not "House of Windsor", as you edited the passage here, much less "royal family of Britain, Canada, and the other Commonwealth realms", as you insisted the passage read here.

Moreover, it should be noted what the wording is in the citation that appears right after the phrase "British royal family" in the Megexit passage cited above. That citation is the very public statement issued by the royal couple, in which they wrote:

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

So in other words, the royals themselves used a simplified, summarized term to describe the general institution in question, and so did the Wikipedia article referencing it. This is no different than when people refer to "China" as such, and not the "People's Republic of China", or when the town near mine is referred to as "North Bergen", even though its technical official name is the Township of North Bergen. No one argue that these passages are "demonstrably false", or not "factual." What is your response to this? Do you still oppose simply saying the "British royal family"? Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What I see is the article Mexit doesn't match the source. Also, comparing "China" and "People's Republic of China" with "British royal family" and "Canadian royal family" and "New Zealand royal family", etc, is a false equivalnecy. "British royal family" is neither the long nor short form of, say, "Jamaican royal family". Regardless, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're arguing a criterion that was neither in my message above, and is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is not whether they "match".

The point is this: he cited source says "the Royal Family." The article says "the British Royal Family." In other words, the article on the very thing the South Park episode is parodying uses a simplified term (the very one I did, as I recall), as does the royal couple themselves in the statement that that article cites as a source. Thus, it makes little sense to insist upon the longer term you insisted upon, or the more recent "Windsor" one you edited, should be used in an article parodying Megxit, when the Megxit articles itself, does not. Saying "they don't match" is a non-sequitur that ignores this. Do you have a basis to dispute this?

If you'd like me to put it more simply, try answering this: Why should the article parodying Megxit use that long description in a passing mention of the thing being parodied, when neither the Megxit article itself, nor the very royals at the center of Megxit, do not?

It does not matter whether the terms for "China" were t4he long nor short form of anything. It was an analogy used to illustrate the use of a shortened, common term for something for which a longer, more detailed descrption may be more technically accurate. Analogies don't have to be perfect in order for the essential point conveyed to be understood, unless you're being willfully obtuse, and prefer to split hairs rather than to admit you understand the point.

OTHERSTUFF is a section on deletion discussions, which pertains to arguments over whether a subject merits its own article. It has jack-all to do with how to word a passage. I mean, seriously, when you say these things, I honestly don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem, whether you were being intentionall deceitful, and didn't think I was already familiar with that policy (and read it again), and then point this out to you, or what. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have some insight into how that policy pertains to how to word a passage in an article's lede section. So fine: Please tell me how that policy pertains to this.

Also, you didn't answer my question above. Do you dispute that you resumed editing the article even though we had not resolved this dispute, and that this is considered edit-warring, and a blockable offense? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk)06:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You brought up what's on another article. See: WP:OTHERSTUFF.

You brought up the Instagram message from the Sussexes. It uses the term "royal family"; no "British" to be seen.

You raised "China" as a short form for "People's Republc of China" as comparable to using "British royal family" instead of "the royal family of Britain, Canada, and the other Commonewalth realms". That is a false equivalency. China and the People's Republic of China are the same thing. The British Royal Family and the Canadian Royal Family (and the Australian Royal Family, and the Jamaican Royal Family, etc) are not the same thing. By your logic, the monarchy of Belize is the same thing as the monarchy of Tuvalu, the monarchy of the United Kingdom, and so on. They are not.

You ask if I addressed your question about new, compromise edits being part of an edit war. Please read more carefully.

Familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, which I note you were previously blocked for breaching. You already only just barely missed a block for a 3RR violation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"You brought up what's on another article."

That's not what OTHERSTUFF is about. What part of this are you not understanding?

The fact that a policy governing discussion on whether a topic merits an aritcle or whether it should be deleted admonishes editors not to cite other articles, does not mean that citing other articles is prohibited in unrelated discussions on other points of dispute. Can you falsify this? Nightscream (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No one said anything about prohibition. The principle of WP:OTHERSTUFF is the same, whether in the context of using the existence of one article to justify the existence of another or using the existence of a phrase or term in one article to justify the existence of that phrase or term in another article. Just because something is used somewhere in Wikipedia is not, in and of itself, a slam-dunk argument that it should be used somewhere else in Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The principle is not the same. It is a principle cited for one type of matter that you are fraudulently passing off as a one that the community cites for another. The reason the community is admonished to avoid that argument in deletion discussions is because each topic proposed for its own article is unique, and must argued for or against in the individual merits of that specific topic, which does not apply to the wording with which some entity is described, either in passing, or in the opening line of an article. But let's put it another way:

Do you believe that the wording in the opening line of Megxit is wrong? Yes or no? Do you believe Harry and Meghan were wrong to refer to "the royal family" as such in their statement? Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A look at the 'three' versions

Acknowledging that my proposal (see beginning of discussion) hasn't been accepted. I'll list the initial version in the page (before being changed on March 5, 2023) & the versions since.

• "...senior members of the British royal family..."
  

Then changed to

• "...senior members of the royal family of Britain, Canada, an the other Commonwealth realms..."
  

Now currently at

• "...senior members of the House of Windsor..."
  

GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And this helps resolves this dispute....how, exactly? Nightscream (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It would help, if you'd clarify exactly what 'version' you're arguing for. Or, are you content with the current version. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just look at the article's edit history to see that? You can also, y'know, read the above discussion, or even the initial portion of it to glean this. Nightscream (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Firstly, aggressive attitude like that isn't tolerated. Secondly, "House of Windsor"--the compromise edit--stood in place, uncontested by anyone, inclduing Nightscream, for 20 days; that's nearly three weeks; it's precisely as long as the article existed until the compromise edit was put in; it's longer than the words "British royal family" were in the article. It has gained consensus implicitly. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Informing @Keivan.f: of this discussion, as he was the other editor to make/restore changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your claim here that that is "the longer-term status" is demonstrably false. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording of "senior members of the British Royal Family" is the exact language used in the article Megxit, which also includes a cited source confirming those exact words being used by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. I think that's about as definitive of a choice as you can have. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

1) The source at Mexit doesn't even contain the words "British royal family"; not even once. 2) Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF; what's unreliably sourced at one article doesn't justify the insertion of the same wording here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There was not any consensus regarding the matter. And to say they stepped back from the House of Windsor is absurd. It's like saying Kim Kardashian has decided to step back from the Kardashian family. One cannot step back from their family but they can step back from the institution they represent, and that institution in this case is the Royal Family. All members of the Royal Family are members of the House of Windsor, but not all members of the House of Windsor are members of the Royal Family (e.g. Lady Gabriella Kingston). Keivan.f^Talk 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding sources, they almost unanimously state that the couple has stepped back as senior working "royals", not senior working members of the House of Windsor. Keivan.f^Talk 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Stomping in here and saying there's no consensus doesn't make you right. The words "House of Windsor" were in place--without contest; 20 whole days and not one peep about it, not even here on the talk page--for longer than the words "British royal family", which were repeatedly contested. The former, therefore, has the consensus by implication, as explained above.

No one said the Sussexes did not step back from the Royal Family. The issue has always been with the misleading claim they stepped back only from the British Royal Family, falsely implying they're still part of the Canadian Royal Family, Australian, and so on. How to describe the royal family has been the problem from day one. Hence, "House of Windsor" was the compromise that avoided the whole mess. Please familiarize yourself with a dispute before chiming in. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording has been changed so that it is a direct quote of the statement by Meghan and Harry, along with a cited source to back up the verbiage. Their quote does not include the word "British", however, the link does properly point to British royal family. That should alleviate any further argument on this as it is pretty hard to debate a cited quotation. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can you explan the "appropriateness" of the link? Particluarly in light of your previous edits. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You complain about other people's attitude yet here you are, taking the issue personally and lecturing me about what I should be saying based on your assumptions that I don't know what I'm talking about. Incidentally, I had read the previous comments and happen to disagree with your take on the matter. And no, having a specific phrase in an article for any length of time is not ground for keeping it there forever. Not to mention that it wasn't even there for a month; that's hardly consensus by implication. It can be disputed and it has been disputed because it is factually incorrect. They have not stepped back as members of the House of Windsor. We cannot create a false narrative to accommodate the desires of a select group of users. The question is simple: did they step back as members of the House of Windsor? No. And to say that they did is WP:OR. Keivan.f^Talk 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "do what I say or I'll get you blocked" and "just because you say something doesn't make it true." Before two days ago, you'd never edited this article. Before today, you'd never contributed to the discussion. Then your very first statement was "there was no consensus"; which is just an assertion, not an argument. You cut apart "House of Windsor" as "absurd", but, neither your explanation of why you think it's "absurd", nor your one edit changing the wording back 20 days to "British royal family", indicated you understood how we'd got to that wording or how that wording kept the peace for, again, three weeks--longer than "British royal family" was ever in the article, contested or not. If you say now that you udnerstood the history, okay, fair enough, I'll take your word for it. However, that's really not what came across at first. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

C@Miesianiacal - The quote from Meghan and Harry uses the words "Royal Family", wbich can be best interpreted as the entire British royal family, and that is why that link is most appropriate. As for my previous edit, it was an error in judgment which I have changed based on the statement given. I try to admit when I've made an error. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the Sussexes used the words "Royal Family"; that's not, nor never has been at issue. However, "best interpreted" is actually a completely subjective theory. Even just linking to British royal family applies a nationality to "Royal Family" that the Sussexes didn't and it, once again, puts back the implication that the Sussexes left the British Royal Family only, thereby remaining working members of the Canadian Royal Family, Australian Royal Family, and so on. Either that or it misleads readers into believing those institutions just don't exist. At best, "best interpreted" is a variation on the tautological "let's keep people unaware because they are unaware" argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If the link is the main issue, the phrase Royal Family can be linked to Monarchy#Commonwealth realms, just as "Queen of Canada" has been linked to Monarchy of Canada. Keivan.f^Talk 21:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought linking to a section in Commonwealth realm--similar to what you're proposing--had been tried. But, my digging through the history shows it wasn't. I'm personally fine with it; though, partly because the couple of places I thought might be better to link to--a section on the Royal Family at Commonwealth realm and a section of British royal family that at least mentioned the shared nature of the people who comprise the family--are gone. (Mention of that seems to now exist only at Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house.) I'm only just discovering that now, so, I don't know why they were deleted. In their absence, I can't think of anywhere better to link to other that what you suggest. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"The words 'House of Windsor' were in place--without contest."

Untrue. I contested it right here from the start, and you repeatedly refused to answer my questions about your conduct, including my March 11 question to you as to whether you agreed that reverting the article during a discussion, as you did, went against dispute resolution policy. I also asked SanAnMan on his talk page to weigh in on March 13, and was awaiting his response. So this assertion by you is demonstraby false.

"20 whole days and not one peep about it.

That is not a standard for inclusion. The standard is discussion and consensus. You have edited against multiple editors, in direct violation of policy, and now you're trying to hide behind the false whine that being warned about this consistutes an "aggressive attitude." It doesn't. It's the prescribed course of action when an editor is seen to be violating policy. Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not contest the words "House of Windsor" since one mention of it on 11 March; that was your only reaction to it after it was made on 6 March and you promptly dropped the matter after it was pointed out the wording at Mexit isn't actually sourced. So, I stand corrected: "House of Windsor" was in the article for 20 days, unedited. It was contested here once, two weeks ago, and never again until today. You asked SanAnMan about this wording, not "House of Windsor".

Read the policy I linked to.

Inquire at WP:AN if your bullying and threatening demeanour is aggressive or not. They should be able to clarify for you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The mention of it on March 11 is the indication that the matter was contested, as was the dispute up until then. With remarks like "only reaction", you're again fabricating a false standard that no one else here recognizes, as Wikipedia empowers as if you get to unilaterally declare by fiat how often or how many times other editors have to express their disagreement with you before it can be called a dispute. Your version was left in for 20 days because the alternative would have been for me to -- do what exactly? Revert it? Doing so would have been edit warring, and is not permitted. What part of this are you not understanding? I asked you point blank above if you understood that reverting during a discussion is considered edit warring, and you chickened out of answering, presumably becuase you know the answer is "yes", and couldn't say that, and now you're indicating that my having exhibited the patience to leave the passage alone for 20 days somehow gives that version the imprimatur of legitimacy. It doesn't, and does not represent any standard recognized by the rest of the editing community here.

"Before today, you'd never contributed to the discussion."

Irrelevant. Other editors can join in a discussion any time they want, and doing so is actually one of the prescribed course of action for editorial disputes. You don't get to tell Keivan or any other editor who can and cannot join a discussion.

"You cut apart "House of Windsor" as "absurd", but, neither your explanation of why you think it's "absurd"...indicated you understood how we'd got to that wording..."

We had not "got" to that wording. You imposed it unilaterally, and during a discussion on that contested passage, in deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy, and then ignored attempts by me to communicate to you that this is considered edit warring. Claiming that "we" got to that wording is a deliberate lie on your part.

"...or how that wording kept the peace for, again, three weeks--longer than "British royal family" was ever in the article..."

Another self-serving bit of spin. It did not "keep the peace".

Again, you unilaterally changed it during a talk page discussion intended to resolve the dispute, and ignored attempts to communicate to you that doing so violated the community's guidelines and resolving disputes. The fact that your violation was up for 20 days, was due to my attempt to patiently get other editors to look at it, while also juggling other matters, both on and off Wikipedia, which often results in a slow reaction process, and not because it "kept the peace." Whether a version is up for 20 days, or even four months, is completely irrelevant, since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not say, or otherwise indicate, that any version of an article is legit when it remains for an specific length of time. It does say that editors have to resolve disputes through discussion and consensus, and that continuing to revert during such discussions is edit warring, but you ignored this.

"There's a big difference between 'do what I say or I'll get you blocked'."

You were not told "do what I say or I'll get you blocked." You were told that you were violating policy, which nothing to do with "Do what I say," which implies that I was exerting some type of unilteral authority, when in fact, I made it clear in my edit summary that had you not ceased your edit warring, I would have gone to an administrator to address the matter.

You were violating Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring and talk page discussion, and did so multiple times. Being warned by other members of the community that this can result in your being blocked is precisely the legitimate prescribed course of action when an editor is observed violating policies. If you don't belive this, then then by all means, report my edit summary at ANI, and see if anyone there even remotely agrees with your take on it. Pretending that warnings constitute a "threat" and or "bullying" is a recurring behavior I've seen over the years among those who think they can just ignore the site's policies unilaterally, but no one here is fooled by your intentional twisted of others' words, and no one at ANI is going to be either.

"...and 'just because you say something doesn't make it true.'"

Which is a true statement, and not "aggressive", much less "bullying". Enough with the whiny false victimhood. You violated this site's rules on editorial disputes, period. Nightscream (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Have WP:AN assess your edit summary. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're are linking to the page British royal family. Shouldn't we avoid pipe-linking or re-directs & show it as "British royal family"? rather then "Royal Family"? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I personally am not against linking to British royal family, but Miesianiacal thinks that by using the sentence "they stepped back from the British royal family" a clueless reader would question its relevance to Canada or think that they have stopped representing the monarchy only in Britain. That's what the concern was (or at least that's what I understood from their comments). But to say that they have stepped back from the House of Windsor is also factually incorrect per sources and other reasons stated above. So the phrase "Royal Family" can be used with a pipe-link to Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house or Monarchy#Commonwealth realms. Keivan.f^Talk 16:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the topic of the cartoon episode, an alternative would be the link to the Monarchy of Canada page's royal family section. As for the Commonwealth realms? That wouldn't be acceptable, as there's no such thing as a Commonwealth realms royal family, as the Commonwealth realms are not 'one' country. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think it doesn't really matter that we show they are the royal family of multiple individual countries. The monarchy discussed in this article is the monarchy of Canada, so the links should point to appropriate sections within that page since a user thinks British royal family might be misleading or confusing. The other Commonwealth realms are irrelevant. Keivan.f^Talk 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm content with using either British royal family or Canadian royal family, fwiw. The former, as they're known mostly for being members of the British royal family. The latter, as this episode's about their connection with Canada. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

British should be used, not Canadian, since that's what's actually being satirized. No one who saw the episode, or knows what's being parodied will be confused, especially if they simply read the lede section or the Reception sections. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

What the Sussexes said was, "we intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family". What the article here used to say was, "step back as senior members of the House of Windsor." No one ever proposed "stepped back from the House of Windsor." I will still argue that "step back as senior members of the House of Windsor" works just fine and avoids all this which-royal-family? argument. However, "step back as senior members of the royal family" and linking to Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house or Monarchy#Commonwealth realms is, I think, acceptable. I'm uncertain, though, on which to link to. Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house is very Canada-specific, but, does contain the sentence, "given the shared nature of the Canadian monarch, most [family members] are also of members of the British royal family." Monarchy#Commonwealth realms is less country-specific, but says nothing about the Royal Family.

There really needs to be one location where this sharing of a royal family is covered. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject matter of the quote from Harry and Meghan clearly refers to their standing in the entire British royal family, not just the Canadian one. They are being parodied with this Canadian royal family angle. The quote and the link should stay as British royal family. I fail to understand how this is even a discussion. - SanAnMan (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What does "entire British royal family, not just the Canaidan one" mean? It sounds an awful lot like the Canadian Royal Family is a sub-set of the British Royal Family, which would be false.

Whether or not you fail to understand how, this is a discussion and in that discussion, so far, keivan.f, GoodDay, and myself are okay with linking to Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house and only you and Nightscream are not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You continue to employ intentional deceit.

keivan.f and GoodDay stated that they were okay with linking to either article, a point they made explicitily clear in their messages here and here.

SanAnMan said he favored "British royal family" in this message.

In other words, keivan.f, GoodDay, and myself, and SanAn Man are okay with linking to British royal family and only you are not.

So two editors explicitly want "British", and only one -- you -- want something else.

Your claim that it's three to two" is a lie.

You are now again editing against two different editors, which is edit warring. I will contact an admin. Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What I wrote was "keivan.f, GoodDay, and myself are okay with [emphasis added] linking to Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house." That is based on my own actions and words and the words of keivan.f--"the phrase 'Royal Family' can be used with a pipe-link to Monarchy of Canada#Royal family and house or Monarchy#Commonwealth realms"--and GoodDay--"Given the topic of the cartoon episode, an alternative would be the link to the Monarchy of Canada page's royal family section"; "I'm content with using either British royal family or Canadian royal family". Only two people are explicitly only for linking to British royal family. So, your accusations of intentional deceit on my part are ironic, at best; a violation of WP:AGF, too. (Not even mentioning the tone and content of this message. I'd think someone who's been blocked twice for personal attacks would know better.)

When, at this point, three editors are fine with an edit and only two are not fine with it, I'm not out of line to implement the edit. We can use keivan.f's other suggestion of linking to Monarchy#Commonwealth realms, if you like. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I still find it hard to believe that people are arguing over something as asinine as a link on British vs. Canadian royal family. Since this is apparently still conentious at best, I've just removed the link altogether. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank goodness, the episode didn't describe the Duke & Duchess of Sussex as being members of the Norwegian, Swedish or Spanish royal families. Now, that would've been a very messy situation. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I still find it hard to believe people are maligning efforts to build the best-possible information source as "asinine". But, fine; no link has the same aim as my use of "House of Windsor" did: It avoids the whole "which royal family?" issue. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose linking to "Monarchy#Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion?

I think we can assume the matter is settled, concerning this animation episode. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not consider it settled. We should not have to refrain from wikilinking a term, in keeping with reasonable wikilinking practices, because of one editor who persistently edits againts multiple editors, repeatedly lies to escape the consequences for doing so. Nightscream (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I gave my advice about opening an RFC on this topic, if you or anyone else, felt this matter wasn't closed. There were no takers. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not need an RfC to address edit warring by a single editor who persistently violates policy. We just need admins and other editors to uphold policy. You're like a dog with a bone with this RfC thing, and you really need give up that ghost. Nightscream (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Royal Family", has been re-linked to British royal family by another editor. So be it. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Word limit

This episode's plot summary exceeds the word limit of MOS:TVPLOT. If 2+ hour television episodes can abide by the limit, then so can this episode; WP:IAR is not a valid argument here. Do not remove maintenance templates until the issue is solved. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Decent enough effort, but the point above still applies. Concerning this, I do not watch the series, I only maintain the articles, thus I cannot summarize that which I have not seen. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: MOS:TVPLOT is part of a guideline. It is not an hard and fast rule, akin to one of the Ten Commandments. It doens't have to be enforced with such strictness, especially to the exclusion of all other considerations, like ensuring clarity to the uninitiated reader. I know, because I'm one of the people who helped write it. It's not a big deal if the word count exceeds it, especially if cutting out portions of the synopsis renders the plot, or aspects of it incomprehensible or inaccurate by way of omission. Nightscream (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a legitigimate reason that this article should not follow guidelines that these articles falls under? What makes this article any different to the thousands of others that fall under the same WikiProject? If a three hour film or two-plus hour television episode can abide by the plot guidelines, then why is this article unable to? "It is a guideline" is not a reason. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines are sometimes defined/used to refer to a a lightly marked line or a general rule, as distinguished distinguished from hard-and-fast rule that is enforced with a high level of strictness. On Wikipedia, all different policies and guidelines have to be balanced against one another, for the purpose of writing the best article content, and not emphasizing one guideline/policy/MOS/consensus to the exclusion of all others.

With respect to writing synopses, it is crucial that they be written in such a way that clarity is not sacrified, so that the reader can understand the basic elements of the story, including things like motivation, character arc, various plot points, etc, so that the relevant connection between the events in the episode is made clear. I have often seen trims/edit made that rendered the plot summary incorrect, or incomphrensible. I don't believe the word count guideline is necesarily being "not followed" simply because it is slightly exceeded by a summary written to ensure this clarity. Another solution to this could be to simply increase the word count in that guideline. Nightscream (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

My questions remains unanswered. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I answered it. You're just ignoring the answer because you don't like it, and lack the ability to falsify it, much less admit this. That does not mean it was not answered. Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Language parameter in citations

@SNUGGUMS: If, as you wrote here, the language parameter is only for citations writtenin languages other than English, then why have I observed citations with that parameter indicating when it is in English? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure when you could've seen that, but every time I looked at references outside of edit mode (both for this article and others), that field only made visible differences for non-English citations. This might have something to do with English being the default language for references on the English Wikipedia unless one indicates otherwise. It either way is useless for English-language references here and I still would save it for those using other languages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I saw it in citations. I can't recall at this point where, but I'll try to research the matter. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a couple: Citations 25 and 26 in Dan Slott. Still, I'll try to ask around about the community's practices regarding that parameter. Nightscream (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)