This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Harmon may be elected to the Seanad in the coming days. Accordingly she would be deserving of a wikipedia entry but she is currently a first-term Councillor and a former Student political President. Deletions have been made of pages of former elected Councillors and of a Page about the AILG, the premier Irish local government representative organisation ie Trade Union in the ROI. In the UK that's the equivalent of COSLA for example. Generally speaking in the UK only Councillors have biographies such as in Scotland have they been elected Heads of Councils etc ie Mayors etc or are personalities like sportspeople or elected to other offices. Is our current policy on deletion/retention consistent?Devite (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. While I'm not sure of the purpose of your comment, if you are proposing:
specific changes to this article (for example to reflect recent Seanad election), then please feel free to do so. With supporting refs. Preemptive discussion here normally isn't required.
to delete this (or another) article, then WP:AFDHOWTO and WP:BEFORE may be relevant.
changes to the bio/politician notability guidelines (or to discuss their application), then Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) would probably be a good start. Discussion here is unlikely to change anything.
Otherwise, in all honesty, I'm not sure of the intent of your comments. Although you may wish to review the policies/guidelines confirming that the project is NOTPERFECT and NOTFINISHED (i.e. it is accepted that some articles may not be reviewed/deleted/improved as quickly as others. That's a given. And, in this case, doesn't appear to have been a problem anyway?....) Guliolopez (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spleodrach you are in clear violation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." As stated numerous times there is absolutely no disadvantage to have the month the infobox photo was taken included within the caption. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't mean it can't be included. Helper201 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helper201 you also display ownership behaviour, repeatedly inserting the month, just because you personally like it. The vast majority of captions are of the format Smith in 2025, the subjects name and the year that the image was created. The month is superfluous information and is not required, nor does it aide the reader. How does it help to know that the image of Laura Harmon was take in February 2025 rather than January 2025? Who, apart from you, needs to know this info? You have not presented any argument in favour of the month, or why it is needed, or what advantage does it bring. You claim there is "no disadvantage to have the month the infobox" which is just a thinly dressed up version of "because that's the way I like it!" Spleodrach (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spleodrach "The vast majority of captions are of the format Smith in 2025" is WP:OTHERSTUFF. "The month is superfluous information and is not required" that's your opinion and completely subjective. Just because something isn't "required" doesn't mean it can't be included, that's just gatekeeping. "How does it help to know that the image of Laura Harmon was take in February 2025 rather than January 2025?", because its more informative, plain and simple. Some people might want to know more precisely when the photo was taken; why assume that absolutely no one would want to know this? As outlined in the guideline I quoted above, you've given no reason as to why keeping this would be "detrimental" as the guideline states. I could go around pages and start eliminating the month of a year bands performed at certain concerts stating "superfluous information and is not required", would that aid the reader in any way? No. Does removing the month aid the reader here? No. Being more informative is a benefit with no drawback. Removing information is of no benefit. You are just making the reader less informed. Helper201 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Helper201 "The vast majority of captions are of the format Smith in 2025" means it is like a common standard that should be followed. There is also the KISS principle! Again, you present no coherent arguments against removing the month, other than you want it there, and you like it. I didn't really follow your claim that you could hypothetically do some sort of editing but wouldn't? Also your claim that including the month is not doing any harm is not a valid argument. Spleodrach (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The vast majority of captions are of the format Smith in 2025" means it is like a common standard that should be followed", no that's just a way of trying to skirt around WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bringing up "Keep it simple, stupid!" is beyond ridiculous if that's what you're referring to. You really think that including a month is not simple or making things complex? "I didn't really follow your claim that you could hypothetically do some sort of editing but wouldn't?", I was applying your reasoning of why you are eliminating months to if I (or anyone else) was to do the exact same thing with when bands performed at concerts to prove it holds zero legitimacy. Wikipedia:NOTHARMINGANYONE does not apply because the information is factual, verifiable and informative. Your elimination of it is making the page less informative. Helper201 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to have reached a low point when you come with something like this: "I was applying your reasoning of why you are eliminating months to if I (or anyone else) was to do the exact same thing with when bands performed at concerts to prove it holds zero legitimacy." I mean honestly, what does that even mean? Adding the month is not informative, it is superfluous information. Spleodrach (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your editing history appears to show inconsistency in this matter, on 25 February 2025, you edited thusly [1]. You changed the image and year of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The year changed from 2017 to 2002 to match the image, yet curiously, you did not include the month that the image was taken, despite it being clearly recorded as January 2022 in commons. Why do you feel the need to record the month a photo was taken for a not very well known Irish senator, but do not include it for a well known French political leader? Spleodrach (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So applying your own logic elsewhere is "a low point"? I really don't know how I can reword that any more clearly or plainly. "Adding the month is not informative, it is superfluous information", no its not. The definition of being informative is to provide information, which this does as a matter of fact, there's no debate about that. Just because you personally think its superfluous doesn't mean it is. The image is of Harmon signing the Roll of Members Seanad Éireann, so it’s obviously informative to inform the reader of the month of the year they were sworn into office.
I reverted the Mélenchon image back to a prior version that was of better quality, which meant the date was thusly reverted back to the prior version. The date was not something I was paying attention to at the time. Just because I missed the application of adding the month there means absolutely nothing. Helper201 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means you edit inconsistently, applying one set of rules for one article and another set for a different article. In none of your recent edits have you added a month to an image caption other than here. You can check my edit history, I have edited consistently, trimming captions to remove superfluous information and keep them succinct. Also, any reader that wants more details can click on through to the image description page. Spleodrach (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the members of the 27th Seanad, none of them have the month in the image caption, and its not because I edited them all to be like that. I edited some but many other editors used the same caption style that I did, so the consensus appears to be to leave out the month. Spleodrach (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm here from Third Opinion. I've read through the dispute and I think the relevant Wiki Policy is here at Wiki's Image Use Policy. Specifically, the date comment is stated as: "Date: the image was created, if available; a full date, if available, is better than simply the year."
I can't believe I'm allowing myself be dragged into this :) But:
@Squatch347 - The WP:IUP#RI policy is about image descriptions (in the "file" namespace). Not really about image captions (in the "article" namespace).
@Spleodrach/@Helper201 - While I understand both arguments (for/against the month), I don't understand why it's still ongoing. Even speaking as someone who would argue with (and lose to) a blank wall, I think it's time to leave this one. It's not a hill to die upon.
Believe me, I am in 100% agreement with finding the argument a bit odd, but they asked for a third opinion. And in this case, got a bad one. Good clarification on the policy. I was skimming through and thought I was still in the infobox section, not the namespace section. That's on me. Squatch347 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses Squatch347 and Guliolopez I understand your points, however if Spleodrach is making a point to go around eliminating this info from the infoboxes of other pages isn't it better some sort of agreement is sorted now, otherwise this could crop up again in the future? And to Spleodrach, yes, I have added the month to other pages but I don't make a point if doing it everywhere I go because I do have limited time and there are more important edits to make. But to cut short this topic without any conclusion just gives you the right to carte blanche do this all over Wikipedia, which I don't think is right. Essentially no conclusion here means you've shown no signs you’re not just going to repeat this info removal all over Wikipedia. Helper201 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for a TPO, and since they are non binding, I will ignore it. Wasn't even correct anyway. The same applies to you Helper201, you will have the right to add months all over Wikipedia, which I also don't think is right. So essentially no conclusion here means you've shown no signs you're not just going to repeat this info addition all over Wikipedia. Spleodrach (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
