Talk:Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Awkward

Throwing that comma in the middle of her name explanation is awkward. Someone fix? 23.121.160.252 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Addressed, although I'm not sure this is the best way to do it, and if anyone has a better way feel free to put it in. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Words to avoid here

This article seems to contain several Words to watch. "Nevertheless" "although" "however", for example, are the ones that jump out at me while reading it. i plan to start cleaning this up, would appreciate any help/comments.Melodies1917 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"Nevertheless" isn't here when last I checked (like, yesterday) and one of the "howevers" is in a quote.

That MOS section is primarily concerned with statements that seem to be expressing opinions; here I used those words to highlight contrasting facts:

From then on, Gypsy was confined to a wheelchair, although he saw signs that she was indeed healthy enough to walk on her own on several occasions

When the Pitres began to regularly confront her about her treatment of Gypsy and expressed suspicion about her role in her stepmother's health, she left with Gypsy for Slidell, although the family would not know this for several years.

However, she apparently did not find him as desirable in person as he had seemed online.

She believed Dee Dee's claim that she had cancer, even if she knew she could walk and eat solid food, leading her to assent to the regular head shavings. However, she always hoped that doctors would see through the ruse, and she was frustrated that none besides Flasterstein did

Dee Dee said he was "creepy". The two continued their Internet interactions, however, and began developing their plan to kill Dee Dee.

If you think any of these could be worded differently, feel free to say. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Commas and semicolons.

Why are there so many commas and semicolons used? There are so many, that halfway through the article I thought that someone had vandalized the page to see if they could add the most commas and semicolons as a joke. It also makes the article read terribly. Paige Matheson (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Paige Matheson: I wrote most of this article, and I strive very much to use commas and semicolons properly when I write; semicolons (as in this sentence) have their uses in joining two separate yet not entirely unrelated thoughts and breaking up run-on sentences. Unfortunately, since it's not the easiest thing to teach people who won't be going on to write professionally, a lot of high school English teachers today and in the recent past have giving up trying, what with all the other pressures on them, and so one of the most elegant and subtle devices (when properly used) in the punctuation arsenal just elicits a "My ... brain ... hurts!" reaction from younger readers. See MOS:SEMICOLON for what we say about how to use them properly.

As for the commas, well, I don't know about all of them, but I do tend to stick to the belief that commas go after the state name or date, as well as before, since state names/years are still appositives, when they are used as part of modifying phrases, something entirely too many people seem comfortable dropping today because (I guess) they learned to text without really learning how to write and it slows them down due to the comma's inconvenient placement on the keyboard.

Actually, as the editor who did the majority of writing on this article, I am seriously offended by your comments (really ... suggesting it looks like the article was vandalized? Please walk one foot in front of the other, touch your nose with your eyes closed, and recite the alphabet backwards), which have more of a random drive-by venting feel to them than a constructive effort to improve the encyclopedia, and I strongly suggest you consider an apology (Remember, sometimes when you summon spirits from the vasty deep, they may actually come). If not ... well, nothing's stopping you from starting a version of this article on the Simple English Wikipedia, one that will presumably use only simple sentences, set aside in stand-alone paragraphs, like your comment above.

And if you really do want to be constructive, perhaps you could list some examples of where you think the use of commas or semicolons is excessive or unnecessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional videos from official news accounts

I found:

• "Authorities investigate possible finial scheme involving murder suspect". TMJ4. 2015-06-17.

Obviously there is no hard and fast rule regarding which videos should be in the EL section but maybe consider the most prominent news organizations. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Autism

Autism is NOT a mental disorder! The wording of he had a mental disorder, either 198.48.146.16 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

“Another escape attempt”: seems something was removed

> Since 2001, Gypsy had attended science fiction and fantasy conventions,[10] sometimes in costume, since she could blend in, even in her wheelchair. At an event in 2011, she made what may have been another escape attempt that ended when her mother found her in a hotel room with a man she had met online. Again Dee Dee produced the paperwork giving Gypsy's false, younger birth date and threatened to inform the police.

This language seems to imply that another similar occurrence was mentioned beforehand, but there is none to be found. I’m hesitant to fix the wording until jt can be confirmed that the other text was not wrongfully deleted. Thesowismine (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there was; I'll check. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "an", I can't find any mentions of a previous attempt in the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course ... that was the problem. I should look in the history ... I think at some point in the past there was mention of one or ... you know what, I think now that "another" is referring to the time Gypsy got out of the trailer on her own and her mother verified her identity with an ID that gave her true age, explaining to the police that since she was on the run from an abusive husband she had multiple IDs. I think that might have been taken out at some point. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back, if another previous attempt is/can be added back. But right now there is no mention of any other "escape attempts", so that's why I simply changed it to "an". - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, what prompted the "another" was this:

In 2009, an anonymous caller told the police about Dee Dee's use of different names and birth dates for herself and her daughter, and suggested Gypsy was in better health than claimed. Officers who performed the resulting wellness check accepted Dee Dee's explanation that she used the misinformation to make it harder for her abusive ex-husband to find her and Gypsy, without talking to Rod, and reported that Gypsy seemed to genuinely be mentally handicapped. The file was closed.

When I wrote all this originally, I swear I recall reading one source that suggested Gypsy herself had put someone up to this in the hope that the police would figure everything out and get her out of her mother's house. But I can't remember which one, and if I had put it in it might have been taken out over reliability questions and/or being speculative. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Can the Law and Order: Special Victims episode be added to the television section?

I wasn't sure if this was okay, but I thought I'd mention it and see if it was apropos for someone to add it if they want. The season 19, episode 10, of Law & Order: SVU, title "Pathological" is also based on this case. It's supposed to be loosely based, but its storyline runs so close to the actual case that it's hard not to make the association. Sabriel (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source making the connection, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Minor change

I noticed in the notes that Gypsy Rose Lee is referred to as a stripper. This is untrue, she was a burlesque performer. I realize a lot of people don't know the difference, but there is a significant difference. I do not know how to edit the notes myself give the way they are embedded, I would appreciate someone correcting this. SnarkyValkyrie (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@SnarkyValkyrie: That's how the BuzzFeed story that inspired me to write this article in the first place described her ... I suppose perhaps it's a common misconception. If you've got reliable sources saying that she was burlesque performer and not a stripper, or better yet that people are mistaken to think that she is, we can put them in. (Of course, since it's only mentioned in an endnote that people are only going to see by mousing over or reading down that far ...) Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

When I went to glance at the note in question I found it needed some editing for brevity and clarity anyway, and that the current introduction for the Gypsy Rose Lee lists her firstly as "burlesque entertainer," so I went ahead and matched that phrasing. I think it's fair to say that just calling her a stripper, without at least a modifier like the one she used (i.e. "high-class") is a bit reductive of both the woman and the kind of unique (for the time at least) kind of stripteases she became famous for. CleverTitania (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This article has two main problems as I see it: 1. The lede is written in the form of a murder mystery, instead of an encyclopediac summary of the main article. 2. A lot of the article is about things that MAY have happened based on various sources. This needs to be kept to a minimum. In general WP only allows statements that can be verified to be true. (WP:V) Ashmoo (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Verified to have been published in reliable sources", you mean. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I have removed all references and associated prose from "Thought Catalog", which is chiefly a fiction shock-horror site. The article was written by a horror aficionado and chiefly based on recycled Facebook screenies. Sad to say, our BLP policy is not quite based on amateurs republishing Facebook screenshots. There is more work to be done; this article would actually benefit from a judicious hello there of WP:TNT. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Other reliable sources we have used in this article, particularly the BuzzFeed story on which The Act is largely based (and which is used extensively as a source here), have cited the Thought Catalog posts as their source; between that and the author's willingness to reprint the Facebook screenshots she was basing her writing on I have at least considered that there is some presumption of reliability. At the very least I would like to have

I would like to ask that you withdraw your "TNT" remark and replace it with something more befitting of the collegiality we all depend on here. Had it not been accompanied by your sneering, dismissive description of the Thought Catalog writer, I might have been willing to excuse it as a temporary lapse of judgement.

Since your editing history does not give one confidence that you're willing to roll up your sleeves and do the hard work of researching and editing an article (I really don't see any edits accompanied with boldfaced green numbers that aren't to people's talk pages, not for the last six months), how about you at least list your issues here and we can all work together on addressing them? Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, Daniel, while we're discussing each other's contributions: I have serious reservations about your ability to be neutral or disinterested in the topic of this article. That being said, Thought Catalog was roundly panned on WP:RSN by @Newslinger:, @Slatersteven:, and @Collect:, each a quite reputable editor in his own right. The very idea that BuzzFeed and others based their reportage on Thought Catalog is reason enough to cast doubt on their own reliability. Yes, I think WP:TNT could be applicable here: the article is infested with assertions that stem from a largely fictional horror story woven by an amateur. This is a WP:BLP despite the untimely death of its main subject: we should be more solicitous for the privacy and dignity of Gypsy and the rest of the family, who are cast herein in an extremely ghastly and unflattering light. This article panders to prurient and morbid curiosity about allegedly bizarre family drama, rather than reporting facts and narrating a story of criminal and medical wrongdoings. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am unsurprised that you chose not to be more specific about your concerns.

As far as what sources whose reliability we do not doubt choose to use, we don't, contrary to what this editor comically thought, apply our editorial policies to our sources ("The real world is not Wikipedia" ... I really think I should write an essay on those lines), and to say that strikes me more as your effort to avoid having to concede something, to push back, than as a rational response, more the sort of thing siblings say to each other in arguments before Mom and Dad than something I'd expect of someone worthy of the title "Wikipedian" (And can you also elucidate why you think I can't be neutral about this? For some reason other than "you dared respond to me", please).

As for what people on RSN think, I'd be delighted if you would provide diffs for me to review. Not that I would disagree with Thought Catalog in general not meeting our standards; I would simply argue for its acceptance in the limited context of this article for the reasons I have outlined above.

As for "infested", in the wake of what you took out, the article still stands up pretty well ... a lot of what seems to, for some reason, bother you, is sourced to other sources like, yes, BuzzFeed and the local newspaper in Springfield, so I rather think that's overstating it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RSN discussion here. I am still curious about what compels you to believe that recycled Facebook screenies are BLP-worthy material? Please elaborate on this theory! Elizium23 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Actually, upon further review, I have largely accepted your removal of Thought Catalog as most of the material attributed to it is pretty well supported by other sources whose reliability you have not yet taken it upon yourself to question (but I suppose you will stay up all night trying; well, how you spend your holiday weekend is up to you, I guess).

I was able to write a different graf about the duplicate birth certificates—the only one that relied exclusively on TC and where, until earlier today, the place where that detail was introduced. At the time I wrote the article, the documentary and miniseries had not yet been made, and now that they have been, along with a lot more RS coverage from earlier this year when The Act came out, there's less reason to rely on borderline sources. I'm not expecting the new graf to meet with your approval ... honestly I don't really care whether it does or not—but I think it suffices to introduce that information.

Perhaps in the future, instead of just deleting something like that, you might at least consider trying to see if the same information can be found in reliable sources and delightfully surprise any editors who regularly work on the page by replacing the URSes with RSes and rewriting to suit. You might even get a barnstar for it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to trigger an angry onslaught, but it really is true that the lead (in particular, but -- really -- much of the article in chief) is written in a blow-by-blow, murder-mystery style. In fact, it's only after four long paragraphs that the lead finally tells us that Gypsy killed Dee Dee, and even this is sort of mentioned in passing -- Marc Feldman, an international expert on factitious disorders, stated that this was the first case he had experienced in which an abused child killed an abusive parent, as if we already knew who the killer was.

Here's a particularly inappropriate passage:

Protective film on the windows made it hard to see inside in the low light. No one answered the door, so the gathered friends called 9-1-1. When the police arrived, they had to wait for a search warrant to be issued before they could enter, but they allowed one of the neighbors present to climb through a window, where he saw that the inside of the house was largely undisturbed, and that all of Gypsy's wheelchairs were still present.

When the warrant was issued, police entered the house and soon found Dee Dee's body. A GoFundMe account was set up to pay for her funeral expenses, and possibly that of Gypsy's. All who knew the Blanchards feared the worst—even if Gypsy had not been harmed, they believed she would be helpless without her wheelchair, medications, and support equipment like the oxygen tanks and feeding tube.

Woodmansee, who was among those gathered on the Blanchards' lawn, told police ...

Oh, for fuck sake. Just tell us the facts of the case, not every breathless twist and turn about how the truth came out little by little, the scales gradually fell from the eyes of the broken-hearted neighbors, what was feared by all who knew them, etc etc and so on and so forth. EEng 04:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That reflects having written that part of the article back when the crime was fairly recent and Godejohn had not yet been tried.

You are right, in your own unique way, that that level of detail is no longer necessary. I have some other things I am working on at the moment, but I think I could be able to address this by the end of the year. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Shoot. Secretly, I was actually looking forward to an angry outburst. EEng 04:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023

Released date is December 28,2023 not the year 2033 97.141.2.180 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done, thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

gypsy age?

Presumably Gypsy's actual age at the time of the murder has been established by now. That should be stated in the beginning. As stands it sounds like she was a child, then half way through the article you get enough information to back out the age to be about 25. or even 23 based on the mothers lie. 2600:1702:3B50:4680:B1CB:2157:4384:EBBF (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the introduction says, "When investigators announced that she was actually an adult and did not have any of the physical and mental health issues which her mother claimed she had, public outrage over the possible abduction of a disabled girl gave way to shock and some sympathy for Gypsy Rose."

If you got the impression she was a child, that inference isn't from the text. And the article also already explains that, while Gypsy didn't know her real age for years, she was born in July 1991. Therefore, the article already establishes that Gypsy would've turned 24 within a few weeks of the murder. CleverTitania (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article is extremely unclear as to what Gyspy's age was at the time of the murder was. Unfortunately I tried amending it but the issues with this article are so numerous (and long-standing, see above thread from 2019) that I honestly don't know where to begin. Cjhard (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That kind of non-assessment assessment leaves me with little, if any, confidence that you will be anymore capable of elucidating (or inclined to) a constructive critique of how the lede (the intro, I presume you mean?) could be improved upon than the editor who started that 2019 thread (who is now, dismayingly but perhaps unsurprisingly, nearing the anniversary of an indefinite block). Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. I have included the words "then 23-year-old" in front of the first reference to Gypsy Rose. Thank you for your observations regarding me. Cjhard (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, did you mean to suggest Ashmoo has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia? Cjhard (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to be direct here and offer some personal observations, with the hope that it mitigates any further sniping. Firstly, it's clear that the comment about a nearly-blocked user was in reference to Elizium23. I see no reason to elaborate on that topic further or the lede/lead issue; these are old and disparate topics that have no reason to be rehashed here.

To the broader discussion; I feel that Daniel Case has tended to, in particular on this article, respond to unclear or less-than-constructive editing suggestions not just with frustration, but with condescending and sneering tones. Which isn't helpful and discourages open discussion about ways to improve the page. At the same time, far too many of the comments on this Talk page have been framed as non-constructive criticism, and Cjhard's "numerous" remarks are a further example. Just saying an article is a mess and has been for some time, without bothering to give specific suggestions on ways to improve it, or being willing to go in and rewrite some of the tricky prose yourself, is frustrating for any editor who has previously invested a lot of time and energy into a page. Even just saying "Example A is problematic" isn't really useful if you don't offer at least some alterative phrasing or structural suggestions to solve the problem.

So I would ask this; please respond to any future conflicts, whether on specific content or writing style, only with relevant and timely comments - doing your best to avoid snarky asides, regardless of whether they are broadly criticizing the article or one another. Because at this point you've both been piling asides on asides and it's exhausting to read. And if you feel the article is in need of improvements that you do not have the time/energy to do yourself, try to offer suggestions which are constructive and actionable, not vague criticism. You are both seasoned editors with enough experience at this to recognize when a little extra effort at civility is worthwhile, to find that WP:OAS balance, before things genuinely become WP:UNCIVIL. For my part, if everybody can be patient with my own scarcity of spoons right now, I will do what I can to actively watch this page and lend a hand at tightening up the prose. CleverTitania (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I can sort of see the point of the criticism ... this is often the kind of friction that results when someone who has never edited the article parachutes in to the talk page, especially during a sudden upsurge of interest in the article, and makes sweeping, outspoken criticisms on the talk page, only to incur the wrath of the editor who developed the article originally and has been tending to it regularly ever since (A great deal of editors seem to presume, erroneously, that there is no one actively taking responsibility for the content of an article they happen across, which is why I advise that before you pop off on the talk page about what a piece of crap the article has been allowed to become, you try to find out who might still be caring by looking through the article history and statistics, and get in touch with them first).

I'm willing to entertain the criticism that perhaps the intro, as is, focuses a bit too much on the particulars of the crime, as it's largely unchanged from what I wrote back in 2017 when this was all a lot newer and we knew less about Gypsy. But, I remind everyone, the article is about the event of Dee Dee's death, not her killer ... I get the feeling the people who complained were expecting the article to be about her. As I have said at AfD, if Gypsy herself becomes notable for something other than having killed her mother, then we can have a separate article about her. Meanwhile, if anyone has any suggestions for how to rework the intro to take account of the time that's passed since 2017, I'm open to them. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've just said just demonstrates the ownership you feel over the article. Both you and the article would likely be best served if you removed it from your watchlist. Cjhard (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Now that's uncalled for, and irrevocably demonstrates a failure to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Claudinnea

You got her name wrong dingus 81.228.144.122 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

According to this cited source, she sometimes added the "a" to her first name as a way of making herself hard to follow and covering her tracks. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gypsy-Rose Blanchard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Who Godejohn is

A description of them and their attachment to Gypsy Roses trial 188.236.207.124 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

Change Gypsy & Ryan's wedding date from June 27, 2022 to July 21, 2022. Ryan stated their wedding date (and also stated that it is incorrect in many online sources) on The Viall Files podcast January 8, 2024. MEMaddux (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rehsarb (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes to intro

You removed the short description I added but did not give a reason. I restored it and gave my reason why I think it should have not been removed. You then removed it and wrote OK, if you want a better reason, it needs to read like it was written by a native English speaker

I dont believe there to be anything that was wrong with my edit. Behaviour like this is off putting to newcomers who are trying to learn and are trying to help.

I have not vandalised anything nor deleted the info that was there. As I am quite new I dont quite know what happens when articles are merged.

I want to help and make the article good but I feel I am waisting my time as you keep removing my edits instead of helping correct what is wrong. Hayleywatson971 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I do appreciate that you're new and trying in good faith to learn how to do things.

Per our style guide, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Your condensation of it to a single paragraph with some grammatical mistakes put it out of compliance with this guideline.

You have used the term "short description"; you may, it seems, be confusing that with the intro. The short description is that short sentence in the {{short description}} template at the top of the article code. It's only visible when you look at the drop-down menu from the search field, or on the mobile version of the site in boxes with links. "Short description" is not a command for what the first part of the article text should be. Daniel Case (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has a brief bit at the top and the rest of info is below the contents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tupac_Shakur

For example

Dee Dee had changed her name after her family, who suspected she had poisoned her stepmother, confronted her about how she treated Gypsy-Rose. Nonetheless, many people accepted her situation as true, and the two benefited from the efforts of charities such as Children's Mercy Hospital, Habitat for Humanity, Ronald McDonald House, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

I dont think all thats to be at the top and could be put further down. Plus the info about the name change is whatvthe family said and its al lot more likely that the name change was just part of the frauds that were commited.

My edit may have had grammar errors but i dont undertsand what was wrong with what i wrote. Hayleywatson971 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Citing what other articles do or don't do is not a valid argument by itself for how we do a particular article. This article is a good bit longer than the article about Tupac's death; it stands to reason that there is more to summarize at the top (and frankly the article about Tupac's death could be expanded a bit more, too).

If you take the time to read the passage I linked and quoted in the MOS, you'll see that it also makes the point that a great deal of readers (especially on mobile, I think) read only the intro, so it is in accord with Wikipedia's purpose to write article intros that, as noted, provide a "concise overview of the article's topic".

I further commend your attention to MOS:LEADLENGTH, which says "A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied", sets guidelines for the maximum length of the intro commensurate with the article's overall text length, and notes that most of our featured articles have intros at least three paragraphs long. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I didnt use the other artcle as the only argument. I can see what you are saying about tge featured article and that they are sometimes longer.

When I view this page on mobile this is what it shows.

On June 14, 2015, sheriff's deputies in Greene County, Missouri, United States, found the body of Clauddine "Dee Dee" Blanchard (née Pitre; born May 3, 1967, in Chackbay, Louisiana) face down in the bedroom of her house just outside Springfield, lying on the bed in a pool of blood from stab wounds inflicted several days earlier. There was no sign of her daughter, Gypsy-Rose, 23, who, according to Blanchard, had chronic conditions including leukemia, asthma, and muscular dystrophy and who had the "mental capacity of a seven-year-old due to brain damage" as the result of premature birth.

Then its the box with the picture and stuff.

@Hayleywatson971: I have refactored this discussion into a separate section as it wasn't about my proposal to merge the separate article on Gypsy back into this one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why listing the illnesses and charities individually is necessary. I hope you understand

I'll say that you may have a point there.

As for what you said about how it appears on your phone: I went and looked at it my phone, too, and it was the same. That's because that's how the mobile version of the site works when it detects that a phone is the viewing platform (on my iPad, the mobile version looks more like it does on a desktop) because it wouldn't work to have the phone version look exactly like the desktop (although you can choose that look at the bottom of the page if you want).

Take a look at the page on a desktop when you get the chance ... you'll see that all the four intro paragraphs are on the left with the infobox (what we call "the box with the picture and stuff") on the right. The vast amounts of whitespace that a single paragraph next to an infobox used to create before the late 2022 skin change are one of many reasons we encourage longer intros.

Perhaps in time the tech people could set things up so that there are more mobile-friendly versions of articles that would load only on phones. Of course, they'd probably tell you to get in line given all the other things people want the mobile interface to do ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You have said in the past that you agreed that it needed work as someone said it reads like a crime novel.

What do you think about the name change do you agree that that part needs to be updated? Hayleywatson971 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)