# Talk:Dylan Thomas

I'm concerned this section is approaching WP:TRIVIA territory, broaching WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, and isn't consistent with WP:EPSTYLE (particularly in regards to "Inappropriate lists"). 
I wasn't able to find any significant scholarly discussion or coverage on his walking trails aside from promotional material on tourism websites. I assume this is why the section currently lacks in-line citations with only notes and external links (I've added templates to identify the claims that require verification, which is all of them tbh)? The introduction is pretty vague and sounds like WP:OR; there doesn't seem to be a clear explanation as to what the bulleted items actually are, and if they in fact form a coherent list? If the necessary sources exist, perhaps there is a way to incorporate information on Thomas's walking habits, or the significance of walking in his work, but I'm not sure this section has legs, or if it's the best vehicle for the information (puns intended). I was hesitant to delete it outright, but perhaps WP:BRD is the best move here. Happy to engage in discussion about how to improve the section if an editor would like to reinstate it! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Walking this night in the white giant's thigh, poem on his birthday, that sort of walking? Doesn't mean he had "trails" of course. Just ruminating, not disputing. I don't have any horses in this race [puns intended].Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What is a ' Columbine shooter' please? Sdgard (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sdgard Columbine shooting perpetrator. DankJae 01:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sjc, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Poetry, and Wikipedia:Good article nominations notified

Greetings, This is an informal attempt, a Before opening a reassessment, to call attention to some issues concerning the Good article criteria (GACR) #1 and #3, and even the B-class criteria #1 and #4. The article has enjoyed 1,668 editors, with 417 watchers, and 48,927 pageviews in 30 days, so this should not be too complicated.
The following categories indicate issues:
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from June 2024
Articles with unsourced statements from January 2019
Articles with unsourced statements from August 2020
Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from August 2020
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from August 2020
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from August 2020
External links: The article sports an external links tag (June 2024) that the use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, which has grown to 17 "External links".
External links: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph of lead: Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
Please note: Removing and moving excessive links to the talk page for possible discussion is not BRD but maintenance. Appendices, such as this one and the "Further reading" section can be omitted without affecting article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
There are citation templates that need removing.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
If any of the excessive links can be included in the article that would be a good thing, however, there are far too many reasons (above) why limiting the section to three or four (even with with consensus if needed) should not be a problem. --  Otr500 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Very good idea to post this and notify GA-ers. I've slimmed down the Ext links a bit; I think there is actually good reason to list the ones that remain, being official sites, major archives and genuine DT curiosities. I guess if Shakespeare had lived in the 20th century we'd have just as many. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reply: Well, there is almost always justification why the "External links" section gets bloated, until it is too large. Thanks for any attention you have spared though. Mainly the section is often just ignored, like when someone adds "another good one" as exemplified by WP:ACREEP. Of all the policies and guidelines listed above, meaning over time there were likely even more severe issues, I may have missed WP:ELOFFICIAL and  WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, concerning Normally, only one official link is included and possibly more under a very few limited circumstances. A problem is that when the section has too many links it becomes a comprehensive web directory.
If my concerns generates attention I am, most of the time, good with that. If not, I will probably just take steps to start a review. At present the article will likely fail. Have a great day,  --  Otr500 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

He's one of the most influential poets of all time and Bob Dylan even took his pen name after Dylan Thomas. 133.203.10.173 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is Rhian Barfoot and doesn't heshe need some kind of brief description to explain his her credentials? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest the editors at UWP have vouchsafed for HER credentials. She lectures at Swansea University. Sorry for delayed response. Almanacer (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair assumption. But do you think, in the absence of any agreed notability, she needs some kind of introduction? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)