Tony Sidaway wrote:
I might expect children to fall for that kind of trick, but it was a shock to see that such material had been entered into an article, which had then been labelled one of our best.
I take it you're implying that those who have disagreed with you on this matter are all "children"? Seems unlikely to me considering the amount of attention it's received now.
I still don't like the fact that the guys' names are there. They are not relevant to the story.
They're the guys that the story is _about_. In what way could they possibly not be relevant? I'm sorry, but this really seems to me like saying we shouldn't mention Lee Harvey Oswald's name in the article [[John F. Kennedy assassination]] (or perhaps even [[Assassination of the thirty-fifth President of the United States]]).
They're the guys who did the thing that the article is describing. The noteworthiness of the thing that the article is describing is well established, there's going to be an article about it, so given that there's reliable sources for the names why should we have to rely on circuitous nicknames instead? It's just silly.