Talk:Cracking the Cryptic

Biography

Unfortunately, the humorous biography that Mark and Simon released on their YouTube channel is not material for an encyclopedia. As such, I removed it. 86.25.183.220 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This piece had a good reference, yet was removed with everything else. I do not care enough about wikipedia BS to get this back into the article myself, but someone should. Pasted in nowiki:

During the years Mark has won The Times crossword challenge so frequently that he has ended up in the Guinness Book of Records<ref>{{cite book |last1=Guinness World Records |title=Guinness World Records 2017 |date=2016 |publisher=Guinness Superlatives Limited |isbn=978-1-910561-34-8 |pages=151 |url=https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hxAyDQAAQBAJ |language=en |quote=The Times National Crossword Championship – Most consecutive wins}}</ref>.

--Duke B. Garland (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... references all from referencable publications. --Naraht (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I've started an AfD for this. There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. --hippo43 (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The National reference

Andrews, Farah (26 May 2020). "Puzzlingly compelling: watch a man solve 'miracle' Sudoku with only two numbers filled in". The National. Abu Dhabi. Retrieved 8 June 2020.

One user dismisses this reference as 'trivial', then cites lack of coverage as a reason to delete the article. Other references show coverage in UK and US sources; this one is in a third country on a different continent and is therefore relevant to notability even if it repeats information from elsewhere. I think it needs to stay. PaulGS (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

2 separate issues. I don't think the subject has attracted significant coverage, but others disagree, so the article is not going to be deleted.

However, we shouldn't add references to demonstrate notability, which is a question for talk pages etc. They should be used for verifiability (not necessary with other sources for the same sentence) or adding information (which this doesn't).

The source itself is garbage, and linking to it does not help readers. --hippo43 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

hippo43Then will you withdraw your AFD? And so your objection could be handled by moving this reference to another sentence? That could easily be done.Naraht (talk)

My objection would not be handled by moving it to another sentence, only by removing it. --hippo43 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

hippo43The source does verify other portions of the article as currently written. You didn't answer my question about the AFD.Naraht (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't see anything that this sources verifies that isn't currently sourced. The article does't suffer from being insufficiently referenced, and this source is very poor quality.

Not planning on withdrawing the AfD, as other editors may still see it and contribute. --hippo43 (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Great work, thanks

How in any way for any purpose for any interested party is the current article better and more informative than https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cracking_the_Cryptic&oldid=963912201 ? None of this version is at all controversial, no one is harmed, and everything is easily verifiable by just looking at that channel for 20 minutes. What has been done to this article is exactly why Wikipedia is no fun anymore. --92.211.230.43 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Videos about setting

The following list of AV media containing videos about setting was removed by USer: Spike 'em according to WP:NOTLINKFARM:

Please suggest a valid alternative. I believe this single playlist can be accepted as an example:

"(for instance, see this Cracking the Cryptic playlist on YouTube)"

No other reference is available.

Paolo.dL (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles are meant to rely on reliable, secondary sources, that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, much of the article content would count as original research if you are unable to source it to reliable sources. Spike 'em (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In this case we are saying that there exist CTC videos by puzzle constructors. That's useful information that everybody can easily verify. I believe it is useful to insert an example, to guarantee verifyability. Similarly, we say that the channel is run by Simon Antony and Mark Goodliffe, and this is based on what is written in the channel homepage, which can be easily verified since we provide the external link to that page. That link guarantees verifyability. Paolo.dL (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

References