User talk:Keeper of Albion/Archives/2023/August

Letby article

All serial killer articles give that level of explanation in the opening sentence of the crimes in order to comply with MOS:FIRST. If you feel there is "repetition" then it's text after the first sentence that needs to corrected (although I don't think it's the case). Please take it to Talk rather than reverting. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

“Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.”

”everything notable about the subject” would be her serial killing spree. You’ve undermined your own argument.

I fail to see what grounds there are for you to keep your own edit in, which you came along and made and then demanded another editor go to the talk page rather than revert it. Is your version of the lede more worthy than the previous? Does it have special protections? The proper course of action is to revert your edit and then take it to the talk page. Your new edit was in dispute and was reverted. That’s how it goes. Asperthrow (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll open a thread on the article talk page and see what others think. but the stumpy opening sentence is contrary to normal standards here. DeCausa (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Of which I am fine to partake. For now, your disputed edit must remain out. Asperthrow (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? DeCausa (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Your change now has a consensus; initially it did not. The onus was on you to justify inclusion, not on anyone else to justify exclusion. Asperthrow (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein change

Hey there. In anticipation of exactly the reversion you made, I had already posted on the talk page of the Harvey Weinstein article. Whichever way you word it, it's ambiguous, since it now sounds like he's producing former films. Granted, that makes no sense, but it's grammatically incorrect and still technically ambiguous. It would probably work better to say that he's "a former producer of American films" or some similar wording, which is both grammatically correct and unambiguous. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for this late response.

I sincerely doubt that any reader may come to believe that Mr Weinstein is producing “former films”, something which does not exist and nobody has ever heard of. Articles about individuals, excluding those whose subject’s nationality is unclear or disputed, such as Elon Musk, begin in the typical manner. “American” denotes Mr Weinstein’s nationality, not that of his films. Your proposal is also needlessly and awkwardly wordy. Asperthrow (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary

You wrote And for the love of God, please stop writing “photo” rather than “photograph”. Is there some sort of consensus against use of "photo" on Wikipedia, and if so, where? The word is widely used in reliable sources, including scholarly ones. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it looks lazy and casual; as though it’s someone’s blog. I didn’t claim such a consensus exists, but consensus does exist that articles are written in formal English. Asperthrow (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Formal sources often use "photo". Just search Google Books and Google Scholar. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)