Traumnovelle

BLPNAME

What part of BLPNAME, exactly, are you citing there? Because as far as I can see, you're removing the name and then citing that essay, but there's nothing in the essay that warrants removing the name. Be specific. Do it on the article talk page. And don't revert again before you do that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject Traumnovelle (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

"The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced" - thanks for confirming that the name belongs there. This conversation is over. If you want to pursue it further, open a discussion on the article talk page. I promise you it will be a waste of your time. Goodbye. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a terrible attitude when it comes to both BLP and dealing with other people on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Spelled, burned, etc.

You shouldn't recklessly change these to your preferred spelling, doing so is a breach of WP:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN.

Today, there is no preference on what spelling to use, in the old days it made a lot more sense to use 'burnt' etc. when this was a proper British colony. Nowadays on Wikipedia, the author should decide on what spelling to use in an article they create or contribute significantly to. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your reliable source that states that? Cherrypicking misspellings doesn't matter. I don't know what you have against British English but you should just drop it. Spelt is in the dictionary whilst spelled is not. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless on what it says, 'learned/spelled' and so on, is acceptable on New Zealand articles. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on which source? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

CT

You have recently made edits related to abortion. This is a standard message to inform you that abortion is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Casey Costello

Hi Traumnovelle, the associate health section of Casey Costello is bloated. Most of the section focuses on media coverage of tobacco and vaping policies. I tried trimming it down but wasn't sure what to cut out. Was wondering if you could have a look at it? Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed some stuff. It is good to look at what is still mentioned in sources. e.g. is her meeting with Vape-Free Kids NZ still being talked about? Probably not. But the disposable vape ban for example still is being talked about: [1]. Also some stuff can be expressed in less words without any real loss of detail. Typically actual bills are more notable/likely to receive secondary/sustained coverage than proposals and meetings. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Traumnovelle, the section looks much neater and concise. Appreciate your help. I agree that focusing on bills and policies over proposals and meetings is a good idea. I have also tried trimming down the Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand article but the body section is still pretty big. Was wondering if you had some ideas on how to trim it down. Andykatib (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Look for post-government coverage. Most of it happens to consist of opinion pieces unfortunately but I found this for example: [2] which provides a good overview of what Labour's most important changes were.

Also look for repeated content (which happens when news reports get added each time) e.g.: In terms of domestic policies, the Government announced plans to make Matariki a public holiday, resume the country's refugee resettlement programme, reform adoption law, new housing initiatives, ban live cattle exports, a new Clean Car rebate scheme and extensive health sector reforms

Bolded content is duplicated in the article with examples of where it is later/already covered below:

The refugee resettlement quota was increased, which met a longstanding commitment to the double the quota refugee advocacy campaign

banning live animal exports

reforming the public health services including a new Te Aka Whai Ora (Māori Health Authority). Traumnovelle (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Traumnovelle, will follow your recommendations. Will look at post-government media coverage, books or journal articles similar to the Spinoff. This will make trimming the main body easier. Thanks for your suggestions. Andykatib (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Air West Coast

Hello, I undid your deletion of the article. Before you delete you should have a discussion in the talk page of your concerns it has been on Wikipedia for many years. CHCBOY (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)