Talk:One person dead, 5 injured in early morning Dorchester shooting

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • With work stuff, it will probably take me about 20 hours to finish reviewing this article, but it will get done.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WCVB source checks out OK.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4633872 [Passed][edit]



Surely we could rename this to be country-specific ("Dorchester, United States/Dorchester, Massachusetts", considering the existence of Dorchester, England? I haven't changed it myself as it's on the front page but it really raises ambiguity. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The name is ambiguous until you read the article. We should change it. @Acagastya, Bddpaux, Chaetodipus: what do you think? [24Cr][talk] 00:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be contravention of archive policy to change it, and ambigious if we don't. I would suggest using a {{correction}} template for the sake of clarification. And let this be a lesson to at least specify the country in both headline and in the lede, because we are for global audience.
•–• 03:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A correction would be the best approach here. [24Cr][talk] 13:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A correction seems appropriate to explain the headline's lack of clarity. I agree we shouldn't change the headline itself. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 23:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Shall I? --JJLiu112 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JJLiu112: Yes. I think you should. [24Cr][talk] 00:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cromium: Oops! Turns out only admins can. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JJLiu112: OK. Write it out here using the {{correction}} template and I’ll add it to the article. [24Cr][talk] 00:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
| label=Clarification
| date=January 23, 2022
| explanation=This article refers to an event in {{w|Dorchester, Boston}}, in the [[United States]]. It should not be mistaken for {{w|Dorchester, Dorset}}, in the [[United Kingdom]].

--JJLiu112 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removing flag. [24Cr][talk] 00:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


{{flag}} At the foot of the article is a box asking for tips. Some of the wording paraphrases the NBC Boston source. We should either remove the box or reword it to avoid copyright violation. I’ve avoided archiving the article for this reason. @Acagastya, Bddpaux, Chaetodipus: what do you think? [24Cr][talk] 00:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would raise question about relevance -- how is that thing reevant, and inserted in the article. We are depending on one source for this and any typo would mean someone else is getting bugged because of that. We really ought not to have it.
•–• 03:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be in favour of removal but it seems we have an entire Category:News articles with telephone numbers. I think the template was originally intended in the same way some news broadcasters provide such information. However, I don’t see this as being necessary for Wikinews. If someone has a tip about the incident, they will be able to find the contact details for the police without needing to check Wikinews. [24Cr][talk] 13:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That template, in my experience was for disaster helpline, not for leaving anonymous tips -- we had a Wikinews hotline for that, but that is dormant for quite many years.
•–• 13:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be okay to remove the template in this case. Though, it's been a while since publication that it's against archive conventions to change it so much. I'd suggest we just deprecate its usage going forward, in favor of placing contact info for authorities in the article itself, or avoiding that sort of information. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of thing inserted in an article is popular for local news outlets. I'm not completely certain it seems totally proper for us. Heaven knows we have an abundance of trolls who visit us for 48 hours then vanish, and they could behave in an annoying fashion with such a thing at their disposal.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree to no use the template from now on. Closing this, @Bddpaux, Chaetodipus, Cromium:
•–• 15:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]