User talk:Tim O'Doherty/sandbox
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Neveselbert in topic WP:CLOSEDTHEBOOKONTHATBET
WP:CLOSEDTHEBOOKONTHATBET edit
"The Conservative Party under Sunak was defeated in a landslide in the 2024 general election; the Labour Party leader, Keir Starmer, succeeded him as prime minister." Now that's getting out in front! Of course, could also happen in 2025... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- :) - It's practically a done deal at the moment; just priming it for a copy-paste job on the Sunak article after both him and I are done so it can be GANed and FACed in a similar manner to—in your phrase—"the Other Liz". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It'd be ideal if it could get nominated ahead of time so that in was 'featurable' cometh the hour... That might be shooting for the moon, admittedly. Good luck with it! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tim I really think you should remove, or at least hide,
in a landslide
. It's gratuitously presumptuous, and potentially a WP:POV issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)- Right now it's just a mock-up of what the article might look like in the future: it's really not meant for public consumption, as evidenced by all the invisible notes and unfinished sections hanging around. If something different happens at the election then I'll change it. This is just for my convenience, so when the election is over and I've finished my draft I can transfer it into mainspace without having to make loads of minor fixes. Is it presumptive? Yes, but the polls are pointing to it so it is based in evidence. Is it a POV issue? Not if it does occur, and not if it doesn't either, because it's theoretical. Saves me from having to come up with a lead section in the future at any rate. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- It just reads as unnecessarily partisan. I was thinking of having a look at what you've been able to do with his article, but this kind of hubris just doesn't sit right with me, to be honest. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Right now it's just a mock-up of what the article might look like in the future: it's really not meant for public consumption, as evidenced by all the invisible notes and unfinished sections hanging around. If something different happens at the election then I'll change it. This is just for my convenience, so when the election is over and I've finished my draft I can transfer it into mainspace without having to make loads of minor fixes. Is it presumptive? Yes, but the polls are pointing to it so it is based in evidence. Is it a POV issue? Not if it does occur, and not if it doesn't either, because it's theoretical. Saves me from having to come up with a lead section in the future at any rate. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)