User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2024/May

George Town George Town George Town George Town

If you feel like you have a handle on this issue and you're operating within the rough boundaries of consensus, then I won't need to raise the issue at WP:ERRORS. The blurb after your edit repeats George Town 4 times. That starts to get problematic. Five times would definitely require a discussion. It's your call, but please keep an eye on this and be ready to defend your position if people want to talk about it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dank: I argue that my two additions of "George Town" are useful: (1) it's fairly standard to give more context to the caption, which also improves the accessibility of the image; and (2) writing "city centre of George Town" is good for link clarity. As it stands, I don't consider there to be excessive repetition (and having visited the place itself I don't mind mentioning it more often!), but if you do wish to cut down on the use of the name, I would be in favour of doing so elsewhere instead, e.g. "The city serves as the commercial centre". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, I forgot about the caption ... yeah, that's too much, I need to bring it up at WP:ERRORS. It's not a problem for me at all if they would rather strike one of mine than one of yours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sir Brian Langstaff

Thank for the edits you are making to the Wikipedia page for Sir Brian Langstaff. I just wanted to mention that during his speech at Central Hall Westminster on 20th May 2024, he mentioned that the Inquiry was not actually closed/finished and that it would remain open somehow (perhaps so he could retain his powers to oversee the recommendations, esp. the delivery of compensation?). I cannot recall how Sir Brian phrased it, but his exact wording would be in the video which started at 2pm. I am just wondering whether mention of this should be included somehow in relation to the Infected Blood Inquiry? What do you think? It would need a reliable source though, but the audiovisual material could be cited as a source if I can determine the specific time index. Thank you again. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@SpookiePuppy: If we are to include this fact, I think it should probably go on the article for the inquiry (which is currently just a redirect to the article on the infected-blood scandal), rather than on Langstaff's article, which should stick to a summary of his involvement. The inquiry remaining open doesn't seem to be that noteworthy at the moment, so I would mention it only if e.g. Langstaff announces something substantial.

If you can find a news source reporting on the inquiry remaning open, that would be the best source to cite, followed by a written transcript of Langstaff's speech (I presume one has been published somewhere). Speaking of the article on the infected-blood scandal, that's in slightly dire need of rearranging and updating, so that fact would probably be worth a mention there eventually. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)