Talk:Jenny Hill (music hall performer)

Memorial to-and-fro

I see there has been a bit of toing and froing on the memorial point. I'm unsure how this aids any understanding of Hill, her life or her work. I note that it was originally added by a member of the organisation who tidied up the memorial, so I also think that as well as the overly trivial aspect to the report, we are also getting into a COI point here too... Does anyone have a good reason to add this seemingly trivial piece of information? - Gavin (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that Tixienixe is a fully paid up volunteer for the Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America and their contributions show that this kind of SPAMing has been going on for years. But to admit this would then not allow Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) to get his frills by stirring the drama pot and blindly reverting me. Cassianto^Talk 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Then work to get the site blacklisted at WP:Blacklist. I congratulate you on your restraint in using the F-word in this thread. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What part of SPAM do you not understand about this? Cassianto^Talk 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

RAN, stop edit warring: I am sure you have heard of WP:BRD, so it would be useful if you could use the talk page to discuss, rather than blindly edit war just because you want to. Per your edit summary, it's not a question of getting something blacklisted, it's a question of this being trivia, rather than encyclopaedic. – Gavin (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Here comes the surrogates. Trivia has no meaning, it is just a synonym for: "I don't like it". If you can write me a bot that distinguishes trivia from encyclopedic content, then I will know what is trivial content here in Wikipedia. All sports articles are trivial to me, but I do not delete them. Wikipedia:BRD is a personal essay, not !wikilaw, everyone cites it to rationalize whatever they do. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "Here comes the surrogates", and I do hope you're not trying to be uncivil to me (and if you could look at the opening of this thread, it was me that started it, so I haven't just come here: I've been here from the start). No, obviously one can't build a bot that deletes trivia, much as one can't write a bot that deletes lies and bullshit (and contrary to your claim above, of course trivia has a meaning). The application of intelligence, standards, and having a grasp of what constitutes encyclopaedic content is something that needs competence and ability. Can you explain exactly what it is about the cleaning of the a memorial that directly informs a reader anything about Hill, her life or her work? If you don't like the explanatory essay BRD, then please see the policy WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which says much the same thing... – Gavin (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Lies and bullshit" are about truth, and Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiability. It would be trivial to create a bot that can check if keywords and dates match in the reference material and in the Wikipedia text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, it wouldn't be trivial to,write such a bit at all, or we would already have one in place, given what we are supposed to do here. Regardless of that minor point, I note you have been unable to answer the question "Can you explain exactly what it is about the cleaning of the a memorial that directly informs a reader anything about Hill, her life or her work?" – Gavin (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the information added by Trixinixie to numerous articles is entirely trivial SPAM on behalf of the Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America. If anyone starts a blacklist for it or some kind of ANI, please let me know, and I would support removing this spam from these bio articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is the lede so big?

The lede is 329 words and the body is 759 636 words. Why is the lede so big? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be? Cassianto^Talk 23:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've moved some info from the Lead to the body of the article. I think the Lead is about right now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks in proportion now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Fact tagging vs deletion

And while we're on the subject of adding information, why don't you fix the lack of citations yourself rather than relying on someone else to do it for you? Cassianto^Talk 23:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• RAN, rather than going about tagging things, why don't you either remove the information yourself or, better still, find a citation? What you are doing is counter productive and benefits no one. Cassianto^Talk 23:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would rather that it be tagged than removed. By doing some Google searches, I was able to find sources, but it was made more difficult for me by its removal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I would rather it be sourced than tagged. It's supposed to be collaborative effort to improve articles. Tagging information for others to do is neither helpful to the project nor collaborative in terms of article improvement. I'm sorry you found it difficult, but information that is unsourced should be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)