Talk:John Byrne (playwright)

Disambiguation Needed?

Isn't there a notable comics industry personality with the same name?

Well yes, and his article is at John Byrne (comics), and has a link to John Byrne (disambiguation). Personally, I'd never heard of him, but his article would suggest that he should probably stay as the primary topic. Maccoinnich 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Update on the comics artist of the same name=

The article for the comic book artist named John Byrne is now located at John Byrne (comics). I changed the wikilink above for clarity's sake. It might be more than five years later but eventually the requested disambiguation has happened. Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Beatles

Which Beatles album did John design the cover for? Apepper (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an album that would have been called "Dolls House" but the band opted for an all-white cover instead and made the album self-tiled. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Residence

JB lives in Edinburgh and Tilda Swinton lives in Nairn, I dont think anyone in Scotland would describe that as in any way "close". I also think their children live with their mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.43.58 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He has never been married to Tilda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.112.118 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What about that time he was married to Tilda Swinton? --86.161.11.110 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Shamefully short piece on such an important man

Not everyone gets an exhibition of his best paintings up at the national portrait gallery. This article's about the length of Tutti Frutti (1987 TV series). And didn't there used to be a little picture? --86.161.11.110 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a very strange article. Byrne is a profoundly important contemporary Scottish playwright and artist yet this article is little more than a stub. And although it's hardly the most important thing about his life, it does seem very odd that there is no mention of Tilda Swinton. She is an Oscar winning actress, after all, and much else, they have children together and she also lives in Scotland. Indeed, references to her appear on this Talk page, which makes it seem that reference at the article have been removed. I'll take a look at the revisions over time to see what's been going on, then consider how the article can be improved in short order. Emmentalist (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing unsourced paragraphs

@Johnbod:, I removed unsourced paragraphs on a biography of a living person (blp). Also the image is copyrighted, so I nominated it for deletion. I also added a source for the John Byrne Awards. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The notice says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful." My bold. The material you removed, some of it referenced, was not contentious, & much of it included the most important facts about him. You could have tagged it, or easily found references. If you want to be an admin, whack-a-mole editing like this is not the route, nor is edit-warring. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, what happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, exactly, you don't seem prepared to do that, either in this article, or your deletion nom on Commons! Do I question your good faith? No, just your way of going about things. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This page needs fixing

There is something badly wrong with this page. I put a comment above yesterday and said I'd look at the editing history. I've done that now and here are my thoughts. Byrne is an important writer and artist whose influence goes well beyond Scotland. This article used to reflect Byrne's significance but it is essentially now a stub. Much material was taken out on 20 Oct 2021 in a bold edit, it was then replaced but then deleted again apparently without agreement. Smaller edits have taken out material since then. In my opinion, the extent of the removal of content on 20 October comes close to vandalism; it falls short of that, in my opinion, because I assume good faith. I can see that there were issues with the content, but this should have led to iterative improvement and not wholesale deletion. I'd like to suggest the following: The revert of the deletions on 20 Oct should not have been re-reverted because the original delete was a bold one and the procedure is to discuss and seek agreement before any re-reversion. I therefore suggest we return the text to its status at 1959 on 20 Oct 2021 when @johnbod reverted the bold and large deletion made by @sahaib3005 shortly beforehand. This returns us to the much fuller version and we can all work together to improve the article from there. Can I get your opinions on that? @johnbod @sahaib3005 @grutness @duncanhill @46.208.73.245 @2.27.82.59 All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed (those pings didn't work, btw). I should also say I'm very dubious about the "best-known" here. I'd never heard of any of these afaik. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)