Talk:Mike Doyle (actor)

message: @74.71.216.45: Hello. You reinserted the claim of the breakup, citing some SAG-AFTRA interview. Can this video verify your claim? I already requested some protection, but it's not a technical lock actually. More like monitoring and reviewing... --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about being emotional and that. I just... I just got worked up and assumed vandalism. I assumed that I watched the video, and I'll quote what he said: "" Hmm... I see implications, but both actors are well known. WP:WELLKNOWN illustrates this. Even if the video might not verify the claim, if I remove the "relationship" content, this would affect the categorization of Doyle, i.e. verification of his sexuality. Per WP:BLPCAT, I must prove notability of his sexuality. If I suppress the categorization, then... I don't know. However, Rannells and the video are the primary sources. original research is disallowed by policy; in other words, I have to strictly interpret the video in a literal sense. ...I'll request third opinion about this. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, I could not find sources verifying his sexuality without involvement with Rannells. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

text: So he broke up with someone else besides Doyle during Falsettos? Also, the Rannells article completely ignores this relationship. Maybe we should too. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol(?)...... Anyway, I found out that some IP user removed the info as "typo". Fortunately, Aristophanes68, I reinserted the info coming from one of the revisions of the Doyle article. I did that before. --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  About the first half of your post... It's a possibility... maybe? Rannells didn't mention a person's name in the video. Can I start an RFC on the YouTube video? Some other editors repeatedly asserted the breakup. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Doyle and Andrew Rannells 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Doyle (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911140915/http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2011/unionsquare to http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2011/unionsquare
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thequire.com/2014/06/26/who-is-mike-doyle/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Rafe87: May you please read WP:BLPCAT and then revert your re-addition to the categories that you added? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for starting a dialogue instead of just reverting me, George. Last year you removed Mike from that category based purely on the fact that he separated from his same-sex partner last year. The category is not merely a catalog of actors who are in a same-sex couple, so you shouldn't have removed of him from the Gay actors category in the first place.Rafe87 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, Rafe87, there's not one verifiable proof, especially from a reliable secondary source, that he broke up with his partner. Also, including info about him and Rennells together would (somewhat) automatically categorize him as such, though sometimes that's not the case; contrast this with Lindsay Lohan#Personal life. Also, there should be reliable sources, not just from primary sources, that the break-up was reported. Certain editors in the past tried to add the break-up without a good reliable source. Therefore, I figured that eliminating the info about the relationship would mean de-categorizing him. To retain the categorization, there must be reliable sources of the break-up. Otherwise, I think reversing the categorization is the best way. (BTW, I see that you've been working on related subjects, so I wonder whether WP:LGBT project interests you.) George Ho (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

text:  Moreover, there's not any other info verifying his sexuality and the importance of it. George Ho (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-categorization 

message: The sexuality-related categories were reinserted, but the article is still missing prose content that would verify the categorization. The matter was discussed a couple weeks ago. It was also discussed last year, but the discussion was extensively also about keeping or retaining content that was supposed to verify the categorization, leading to the removal per WP:BLP and consistency with the other article that currently doesn't mention the removed content. I'm re-discussing the categorization matter in a newer thread to avoid appearing toward one side or the other; nevertheless, bold edits to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinsertion of sexuality-related categories