Talk:Dunblane massacre

message: I suggest Snowdrop Campaign mege with this article. Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There should 100% be a link to the snowdrop campaign. Both are related and it's relevant information to what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8e7a:800:702e:1f26:ccd4:df62 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 'Snowdrop campaign'? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dunblane massacre. 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/20120306212638/http://www.gun-control-network.org/GCN03.htm to http://www.gun-control-network.org/GCN03.htm
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) 18:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dunblane massacre. 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/20140319025454/http://www.rareplants.co.uk/product.asp?strParents=&CAT_ID=99&P_ID=2970 to http://www.rareplants.co.uk/product.asp?strParents=&CAT_ID=99&P_ID=2970
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220112511/http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/051004.asp to http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/051004.asp
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) 00:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed  an unsourced mention of Andy Murray form the lead. It seems WP:UNDUE to mention him just because he happened to be there and is now notable. The incident is mentioned in his article, so we could easily find a source to verify that he was there, but I don't think it belongs in this article at all, let alone the lead.
I'm bringing this to the talk page because this material keeps getting restored to the article, and previous discussions on this are now archived. Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1#Andrew Murray, See Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1#Andy Murray - Redux, Talk:Dunblane massacre/Archive 1#Andy Murray Ver 3.0. Those discussions were largely looking at whether he was actually present and whether the description of his actions during the event were accurate, but user:Nick Cooper and user:thefunkygibson argued against including any mention of Murray, and multiple editors have removed mention of Murray from the article in the last 10 years. Meters (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly that it does not belong in the lead, a brief mention in the body would be the very most that is apt. Murray's own page includes comments from him which basically boil down to "I was too young to understand what was happening". Perhaps we could insert a note in the lead to NOT add? Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I would maintain there is little utility to mentioning Murray at all, let alone in the lead. This is an event where the over-arching notability is the event itself, and the wide-ranging consequences of it. That someone who has subsequently become world famous happened to be in the same building at the time has no bearing on any of that. We can contrast this with other events where notable people happened to be incidentally involved, and we don't elaborate much beyond that (e.g. those killed in the 2002 Potters Bar rail crash). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that Andy Murray was there and has been speaking on more than one occasion about the incident, more recently in the context of other school shootings https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/61640325 is very relevant. Should then the references to Seth MacFarlane, Mark Wahlberg, and Leighanne Littrell be removed from American Airlines Flight 11: they were not there, but they could had been there? 212.202.135.206 (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Murray SHOULD be mentioned somewhere in this article. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? He himself (I believe) has said that he was too young for it to have had any impact on him. What understanding does it add to this terrible event that a - much later - to be famous person happened to be there as a child? Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Murray 

message: Why is there so little in this article about the early life of Thomas Hamilton? Other mass killers have much longer biographies on Wikipedia, see Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for example. --Viennese Waltz 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamilton biography 

message: What file (?) is proposed for deletion (according to the note below the portrait), and why? Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at WP:FFD now. It's :File:Thamilton.jpeg, and the question is, "Does it meet WP:NFCC?" John from Idegon (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why deletion? 

message: Would it be possible to get a photograph of the Gwen Mayor rose? I think that would be fitting and would enrich the article - and it is a fine rose in its own right. There is a photo here: https://twitter.com/eisunion/status/1238406071884054528 but of course I don't know if that is copyright. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose 

message: User:Arctarion, Regarding this edit]. WP:BRD mandates that if an edit is challenged, the editor making the change MUST take the matter to talk. The default is the re-instatement of the pre-existing text until agreement on any addition or change is reached. There is no 'exemption clause' for "the challenge made no sense to me", even less for "well they do this on a similar article". Therefore the norm would be for me to revert your changes until such time as agreement is reached here, per the rules. I'm not going to do that however.
What happens on another article is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Unless the other article(s) are established as being the accepted norm, it proves nothing. Maybe the other article is wrong or maybe  the two articles choose to do things differently. FWIW, my objection was that the "x years ago" added nothing. I can see the sense of including the "age" of an ongoing situation (an active war, the current COVID pandemic etc), but thought/think that adding it universally to event articles is an obtrusively pointless gimmick. How is that different from saying that the battle of Hastings/Waterloo/Midway or the decapitation of Anne Boleyn happened X00 years, y months, d days ago? I have edited many UK and Europe 'tragedy' events - terrorist attacks etc and almost none use the 'x years ago'. I also checked a random selection of modern, mainly UK, "major incidents" - about half include the "age", with a slight tendency for it to be included when the event occurred more than 20+ years previously. but post 1960-ish. So there appears to be a slight tendency with older events, but there isn't really a 'norm'.
What has caused me to re-think challenging your change is that another editor reformatted to 'bracket/parenthesise' the (y years ago) text. IMO it makes it much less obtrusive and not worth the effort of my objecting. I'm only leaving this post to inform you of some of our norms. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age parameter 

message: There is not a single mention of the respective ages of any of the victims. Makes no sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbyBoog (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ages of victims