Talk:Lyons Crime Family

Dragging

I do my best not to be sensitive to people's feelings, but isn't this a trifle unencyclopaedic ?

The family's origins can be traced back to the Possilpark area of Glasgow, where the Lyons family were dragged up for generations.

Claverhouse (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"Firm"

I'm not sure a piped link to British firms (organised crime) is a good middleground here - why specifically this term? Its supposed pertinence relies on a bit of circular Wiki referencing which isn't sourced properly in the first place - the citation for the Lyons over at the aforementioned "British firms" article doesn't even use the word "firm" (the article itself is a bit of a OR/SYTNH mess but that's a separate kettle of fish). ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

British criminal organisations

The link in the first sentence to an article specifically regarding British criminal organisations is patently more pertinent to this article than a general, worldwide one. If the reason for the change to the less specific article regarded a dislike of the use of the term "firm", firstly it can be avoided here without losing the link to the specific article and if you feel "firm" shouldn't be used in the title of the linked article, resolve that there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

it's not a dislike, it's just wrong? It's a slang term, this is an encyclopedia ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

And it's no longer an issue for this article. If it is for the other, again, resolve that there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm planning to. I'm also planning to remove the piped link in the lead of this one per MOS:LINKCLARITY. Cheers ToeSchmoker (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Re link clarity, if the issue is the unsatisfactory or unclear name of the linked article, addressing that name addresses the issue, not the removal of a link to an article on the evidently pertinent topic, clearly and accurately labelled in this article "criminal organisation". (The article regards a subset of criminal organisations but prefixing its labelling here with "British" would be superfluous.) If the quality of the linked article is deficient, again, addressing that is the way to proceeed, not removing the link. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

British firms (organised crime)'s being a bit of a crap article isn't relevant. It's a slang term and duplicates scope of other extant articles but again it's not relevant, I'm just talking about a piped link.

Why pipe a link to there when organised crime exists? Why make the reader click "organised crime" in this article's lead, be sent to "British firms" via piped link, where they can then click the link to "organised crime" within that article? This is bizarre - this article has always linked to organised crime in the lead until it was changed to British firms (organised crime) sans any explanation. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

A loose definition of "always" to exclude an element that has remained stable in the article for just shy of two years. Until then, the term employed was "Scottish crime syndicate". Crime syndicate redirects to a general article on organised crime, worldwide and not particularly to the referred-to organisations. The link of the last two years focused the link to an article on said crime syndicates, what's more in the relevant geographical sphere. Patently more pertinent a target, whatever the merits or otherwise of its content. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

So if an article existed, perhaps an unsourced stub called "Glasgows [sic] notorious gangsters", we'd better link to that because it's more pertinent? The fact remains that it's not a word used to refer to these specific criminals - go check the citation yonder at the firm article and tell me if the article specifically calls aforementioned criminals a "firm" (it doesn't). If you aren't going to budge on linking to this article then perhaps you'll help me clean it up? ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

(For the fourth time,) if the issue is the name of the linked article, not the pertinence or "(it)'s being a bit of a crap article", address the duff name, please, would you? Put a proposal on its talk page, gain consensus and, if you do, problem solved. Depending on what you come up with, I may even support your proposal. The terminology elsewhere on Wikipedia seems to favour "...organized crime groups" so "British..." thereof, perhaps? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

So rather than resolve the issue at hand, as you yourself have expressed it, of addressing a deficient article title, which I have indicated I am open to support and have even suggested a title as solution, with no acknowledgement or response, you unilaterally impose your contested and ineffective, cover-up symptom-rather-than-problem addressing course of action, changing the link from the one that has been stable for two years, despite this ongoing, patently unresolved discussion, with clearly no consensus for your preferred action!? That is blatantly disruptive and indicates your preference to win! rather than bother to fix the issue. WP:BRD: restore the stable version pending consensus and, better still address the issue of the other article's title and, if successful, the issue is resolved for both articles and everyone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I take issue with this reply chiefly "blatantly disruptive" and "cover-up". Re the former: MOS:LINKCLARITY - what I'm doing is not disruptive as I have said however many times, no point going into it again. Re the latter: see edit summary where I say "remove piped link in lead" - could this be any clearer? I would appreciate you at least strikethrough/reword "cover-up course of action" because this is accusatory and uncivil. I am rather busy at the moment so naturally this rather unimportant (in the context of general life) editing quandary hasn't been on my radar for some days. ToeSchmoker (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, as you profess that your issue is soley with the title of the other article, addressing that title is the matter at hand, not nixing a link to it. You have chosen instead to do the latter, rather addressing the symptom, papering over the cracks, sweeping it under the carpet, covering up the problem at hand, or however one might put it. I should maybe have phrased it as "cover-it-up", or something, as cover-up possibly implies inaccurately the duff title was your work. I have struck the phrase and replaced it. I had the impression you were an experienced editor who would be familiar with BRD and that subsequent reinstatement of a reverted bold edit without consensus at the talk page is warring and thus disruptive; if you are not, I am sorry you were offended by something you were not aware of, though please do apprise yourself re BRD and warring. You may believe you are correct but reinstating your edit while other(s) clearly do not is not the advised course, particularly with the antagonism it is likely to engender. That you "remove(d the) piped link in lead" is evidently apparent; per above, the reasoning for doing so is far from it.

So, since the problem is with the title of the other article, time spent here would be better diverted. I'm sure you'll appreciate you're not alone in having better things to do. Can we redirect our efforts to that article? As mentioned below, I have made a start and suggested an alternative title but left it to you to make the formal proposal, preferring such to be a choice that I know would satisfy you. Can we put the above behind us and pick up there? 11:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I've got the ball rolling regarding the title of the other article (Talk:British_firms_(organised_crime)#Article_title), suggesting one but not formally requesting the move pending your input. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

"Sorry you were offended by something you were not aware of" is a bit limp but we can move on. I have engaged in the discussion over there. I am quite experienced with Wiki and the joys of editing it so I think we should be realistic - unless I personally clean up that firm article (I have already made a start), whether it's completely gutting it, renaming, merging to other extant articles, taking to AfD etc. it is quite likely nothing will get done about it. You say I have chosen not to address the symptom but you are very much doing the same and also opposing a fairly simple interim solution (do not link to the article). This bureaucratic stonewalling via 3RR/"seek consensus" really is the sort of stuff that dissuades newer editors. Anyway - I shall see you yonder the other talk page should you actually wish to help. ToeSchmoker (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

3RR has neither been invoked, nor even mentioned. That you have indicates you are conflating it with BRD, which is about the importance of discussion and consensus rather than plain reinstatement of an edit. I'm also baffled by a fixation with the title of the link containing "firm", which is advocated by neither of us, and continued discussion of the article itself when you say “British firms (organised crime)'s being a bit of a crap article isn't relevant” to the discussion. Anyway, I’ve resumed discussion there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)