User talk:Sirrontail

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Isabell121 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

A Moment Like This
It's not necessary to mention if [placeholder name] still retains the record; nor the name of the artist who broke the record (if applicable); nor the name of the artist who presently holds the record, if different from the last. The information is relevant to Alexandra Burke and Hallelujah, though not to Leona Lewis and A Moment Like This. There is zero reference to Leona breaking Britney Spears' old record in Baby One More Time (song) for exactly the same reason. It simply has no bearing on the performance and reception of that song. 77.103.88.137 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor does the previous holder of record have any "bearing on the performance and reception of that song". The fact that Britney held the record previously has no impact upon the song itself - yet is there because it is extra information about the song and about the record - and for this reason if Britney is mentioned so would Burke. No Leona isn't on BOMT's page, but that has no holding on the issue; what I would see as a wrong on another page doesn't justify the continuation of a wrong on this one.
 * We can also look at the mention of John Landy on Roger Bannister's page - both Bannister's and Lewis' records were relatively significant and at the very least a mention of the record being broken is necessary and as such should be included. Sirrontail (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we peruse this logic to its necessary conclusion, then we end up noting the last record holder, the next record holder and the current record holder, if different from the last, "because it is extra information about the song and about the record". Digital downloads are increasing year on year and there are better ways to disseminate full information. I believe it is non-controversial to name the previous record holder only, so to avoid exactly this problem and stay on topic. Therefore article "Baby One More Time" mentions briefly whose record was broken; "A Moment Like This" notes whose record was superceded, and on "Hallelujah" we again mention whose record was supplanted. That sound fair? Otherwise we end up with a situation like this (diff), where some pages acknowledge the next record holder but not the last. Britney's page does not mention any other record holders, so I am going to follow their lead and remove excess details until we can agree on matters. Dynablaster (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have opened this up for wider discussion. Dynablaster (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept that should we take it to its logical extremes we would end up listing all record holders, but I am not suggesting that we take it to the logical extremities - I am suggesting we have a situation in which we detail which record was broken, who held it prior and who succeeded as title holder - simply as a manner to give a brief idea of the timeline of said record which can give quite a bit of information regarding varying things. Britney holding the record for around a decade gives us a huge amount of information regarding her relative popularity. If we are to mention a record then surely it is reasonable to wish that information regarding said record is fleshed out - not to the extreme, but to simply to a mid-point in terms of quantity of information.
 * Why are we using Britney's page as the trendsetter? As I mentioned before why not use Bannister's? Sirrontail (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a precedent on Wikipedia for a brief record holder timeline. Does it apply only to music or other fields and activities, like athletics? If we have a descriptive sentence that notes [placeholder name] (athlete) broke a record in 1947, is it really necessary to say whose record was broken and who superceded that person? I find this disruptive and unnecessary. That is only my opinion. Other editors may also want to comment on this matter (including members of WikiProject Music). Dynablaster (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See I guess that is where we differ - you see it is disruptive, yet I see it as reasonable and short introduction of further information to a reader. But yeah lets hope some more people pop along and give their views. Sirrontail (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland)


The article Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability, only sources I could find were small inside publications of the far-left spectrum, but nothing in reliable, independent sources."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Socialist Alternative (England, Wales & Scotland) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)