Talk:Saddleworth Moor

message: Copied from User talk:J3Mrs. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link, it does not need more. I am willing to remove information as WP:UNDUE. Who reads the talk page before editing? I don't and neither does anyone adding this stuff. It would be more useful to add relevant material about geology, flora and fauna but subheadings in such a short article can only inspire editors to expand it. J3Mrs (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied to Talk:Saddleworth Moor, which I think is the best place for this discussion. For what it's worth, I read talk pages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary headers will inspire those who wish to add trivia. Perhaps people visit this page for other reasons, ie to find out about geology flora and fauna. I looked back at the Moors murders additions, I don't think the editor who added them read talk pages either. J3Mrs (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree that the article could benefit from more on Saddleworth Moor itself (geology, etc.), and that it doesn't need more on the Moors murders (which are rightly covered in detail elsewhere). But I disagree that adding a subheading encourages expansion (I wouldn't consider it trivia, incidentally). As I understand WP:SUMMARY, adding  (which seems to assume a subheading, which is why I added one) draws attention to the fact that the section following it is a summary, and that those wanting more detail on that particular facet should follow the link to the more detailed article. If anything, I'd expect it to reduce the expansion of the section. This seems a tailor-made case for that approach. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not consider a less invasive See also section so it is not stuck in the middle of the article.J3Mrs (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer my solution (I find the "Main article" links useful, rather than obtrusive), but a "See also" section would be better than nothing. Let's see what others think? Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you prefer your solution but I cannot see the point of having such an obtrusive heading in the middle of this article. J3Mrs (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of Moors murders section 

message: Substituted at 05:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Adding here as removed from article. Here are more sources for the mystery man, from The Guardian and Sky News:  snd  Police suggested that he might have been making a pilgrimage to the scene of the 1949 plane crash possibly because he was related to a victim of the disaster: . Note that The Guardian source says that the man had no scars, but this is incorrect. BBC Radio 4's World at One has revealed that he had a scar on his left leg and had a metal plate holding his femur together. The manufacture's mark on the plate has narrowed the man down to being one of 7,000 possible plate recipients, in Pakistan, after 2001. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Saddleworth Moor, what extra information about the moor does the above tell the reader? This is a news story not content suitable for adding to an encyclopedia. J3Mrs (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You could argue that the fact it contained murdered children doesn't tell the reader "extra information about the moor". That was likewise "a news story", but a much bigger one. I don't think it gets in the national press very often. This is quite an unusual occurrence. The possible link to the aircrash may prove significant in establishing this man's identity. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is linked, so is the crash, I don't see your problem. J3Mrs (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article do you mean? The Moors Murders topic has five sentences, including one for poor little Keith Bennett, whose body has never been found – we only have Ian Brady’s word that he’s connected to the moor at all. I was just thinking the mystery man might deserved more. But the plane crash has only one sentence, so maybe it should get a bit more instead? Perhaps the mystery man belongs at the plane crash article, but probably only if the link is proven. I think you have done a very good job of tidying up this article, by the way. It has a better structure like this. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The mystery man is mentioned and referenced to an interesting BBC article but the encyclopedia deals in facts not speculation. I've been interested in this area for some time, I sometimes walk there and appreciate that you think I've improved its structure. J3Mrs (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Not relevant here. You'd better write the article. J3Mrs (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry to hear that. I wonder would you help me to write an article? I have never written an article before and it looks very daunting. Or do you know someone who might be able to help me? Thank you. 217.38.84.185 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery man