User talk:Ianmacm

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

This category would benefit from some clarity as to whom it applies then. It has politicians, but also officials, advisers and publications. If it does not apply to people who supported Labour during that era, does it apply to donors during that era? Rodericksilly (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elton John is known primarily as an entertainer. He has expressed support for the Labour Party, but WP:CATDEF says "The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them." It would be stretching things to say that supporting the Labour Party is one of the defining characteristics of Elton John's career. This could be raised on the talk page for further input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw the reverted edit on the Michael Jackson page. I mean this very respectfully, but have you actually read the MJ piece that was linked? It seems only 15 seconds or so passed between the post and reversion. Again, this is not a negative observation but perhaps you should read the MJ PDF document and the historical facts stated within it. It seemed to be very unusual exposure documented from 1987. However I am fine with your decision. No war here at all. Cheers. Malcomsbridge (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was worried about due weight here. It doesn't seem to be something of key importance that has to be in the article. As ever, please discuss on the talk page if you want further input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Many thanks. Malcomsbridge (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edition of mass shooting pages omitting mass shooter names. I do understand reason behind it, but do you have any idea where i could propose changing policy about naming perpetrators so that their names can be omitted at places where it is not necessary (especially first paragraph where it, in my opinion, has highest chance of being seen by viewer) without violating this policy. I would also propose a total ban on naming juvenile mass shooters, just like it was done in the article about Belgrade school shooting. I believe it is a step towards denying them notoriety, and there is evidence than many of them crave exactly that.

Space2006 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common argument and it has been proposed before. "We mustn't give them the notability that they craved". However, Wikipedia is not censored and the names are easily available in the news story citations of the article anyway. You could raise this at WP:VPR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Space2006 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]