Talk:Penn State student blog inaccurately reports death of Joe Paterno
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Review of revision 1378429 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 1378429 of this article has been reviewed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Looks good. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1378429 of this article has been reviewed by TUFKAAP (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Looks good. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Requested move[edit]
I think, given that he's now truly dead (and needs an obituary post ASAP), I think we need to change this article to "Penn State student blog prematurely reports death of Joe Paterno" instead, given the true circumstances. Anyone agree? ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not good to rename articles after publication, as this may create duplicate entries in some feeds. If we have a later story, once published that can be referred to from this article (a standard exercise for which there is a specialized template). --Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with what Pi zero said, for that reason - although I'd use the 'premature' title if I were writing this article now. Perhaps one thing to consider is it was wrong at the time. This isn't quite as simple as the usual situation, where one can automatical say new info gets a new article, because the update has come in the same day as this article was published. Nonetheless, I'd be inclined to leave it pretty much as-is; an update to this noting he has now died, and then leave it. A separate obit would, ofc, also be very nice indeed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support renaming this article to include the word premature. Unless we can get a proper obit published very soon, we risk misleading our readers into thinking he is not dead. Duplicate entries in the feeds is annoying, but less harmful than misleading content. At minimum we should put some sort of notice on the top of this page as Blood Red Sandman suggests. --Cspurrier (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article now says he is dead (a substantial change which I reviewed, copyedited, and published). The report was, evidently, inaccurate, and I'm concerned that "premature" could lead to an inference that they simply shouldn't have published it as soon. --Pi zero (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support renaming this article to include the word premature. Unless we can get a proper obit published very soon, we risk misleading our readers into thinking he is not dead. Duplicate entries in the feeds is annoying, but less harmful than misleading content. At minimum we should put some sort of notice on the top of this page as Blood Red Sandman suggests. --Cspurrier (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with what Pi zero said, for that reason - although I'd use the 'premature' title if I were writing this article now. Perhaps one thing to consider is it was wrong at the time. This isn't quite as simple as the usual situation, where one can automatical say new info gets a new article, because the update has come in the same day as this article was published. Nonetheless, I'd be inclined to leave it pretty much as-is; an update to this noting he has now died, and then leave it. A separate obit would, ofc, also be very nice indeed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm of the view that the death was worth a brief mention in the first paragraph regardless; that should hopefuly also, simultaneously, go some way to easing concerns here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed (and reviewed and sighted). --Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)