Talk:Capital Gazette shooting/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Capital Gazette shooting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Edit request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the "See also" section in its entirety. Both links are already present in the article body.
- List of journalists killed in the United States
- Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward — 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Done WWGB (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Add ages of victims
The ages of the victims are:
- Gerald Fischman:61
- Robert Hiassen:59
- John McNamara:56
- Rebecca Smith:34
- Wendi Winters:65
In suspect section, suspect is 38 years old, please specify. Source:MSN News, Business Insider written by David Choi
Can you add ages of them please? May they rest in peace. Thank you.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Victims announced
The victims in today’s shooting at the Capital Gazette have been identified. Their names and responsibilities at the paper are as follows:
- Wendi Winters, Special Publications
- Rebecca Smith, Sales Assistant
- Robert Hiaasen, Assistant Editor, News
- Gerald Fischman, Editorial Page Editor
- John McNamara, Staff Writer
This information was deleted from the article a few minutes ago.[1]
See also section
Per MOS:SEEALSO: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." Please provide annotations to the linked articles, because speaking for myself as a reader, it is not immediately apparent how the three events should be linked, other than in a very general sense that would seem to admit many more than just these three. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Dates
The appeal case was ruled in 2015. The original defamation case was ruled earlier. [1] 68.33.74.208 (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Page title
Why is this page titled "2018 Capital Gazette shooting"? There is no other Capital Gazette shooting that this should be differentiated from, and this talk page shows that there was no discussion about moving it. Completely unnecessary. 107.77.234.191 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm moving it.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think Annapolis newspaper shooting might be more optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most media coverage referenced in the article has specifically identified the Capital Gazette. bd2412 T 14:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- At the moment Google results do give "Capital Gazette shooting" the edge. But it's not a well-known paper. We should keep our options open. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Most media coverage referenced in the article has specifically identified the Capital Gazette. bd2412 T 14:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think Annapolis newspaper shooting might be more optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts and Prayers
President Trump sent out a tweet offering "thoughts and prayers", yet any editor who attempts to link to the article on this topic has their edits reverted. The reason given is "no definition is needed". This logic would seem to remove the need for many links to articles covering basic topics because "we already know what that term means". These editors are not trying to define the term within the article, which I agree would interrupt the flow and is extraneous within the article in question. They are simply referencing another article within WP that discusses the frequent use of this term. Linking to another article does not interrupt the flow of the article in question, and the wider conversation regarding these reactions seems relevant. Closetsingle (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- The same argument could be made about every word or expression that has an article in Wikipedia, turning articles into a sea of bluelinks. The words "thoughts" and "prayers" require no further definition or understanding, they are "everyday words understood by most readers in context". Any link is therefore WP:overlinking. WWGB (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that "thoughts" and "prayers" are words understood in context and certainly fall within the overlinking policy. However, the phrase "thoughts and prayers" has taken on a distinct connotation within the political climate, especially in reference to tragic events. If "thoughts and prayers" were indeed such an easily understood term (including the wider debate about its use), then why is there an article about the subject? Closetsingle (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is an inherent controversy with the use of the phrase. It is noted in the thoughts and prayers article that Trump (and others) had strayed from the phrase after it became a point of controversy, so it is interesting, at least, that it was deployed here. bd2412 T 14:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I support linking to Thoughts and prayers as it is relevant to the subject.[2][3][4] We're not drowning in a sea of blue; more like a sea of bullets. [FBDB] - MrX 🖋 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I believe we have a consensus for including the link, then. bd2412 T 17:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- It seems another editor already made the change independent of this discussion. Closetsingle (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, to the same effect. However, consensus here should insure that it is not undone again. bd2412 T 18:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- It seems another editor already made the change independent of this discussion. Closetsingle (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I believe we have a consensus for including the link, then. bd2412 T 17:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I support linking to Thoughts and prayers as it is relevant to the subject.[2][3][4] We're not drowning in a sea of blue; more like a sea of bullets. [FBDB] - MrX 🖋 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is an inherent controversy with the use of the phrase. It is noted in the thoughts and prayers article that Trump (and others) had strayed from the phrase after it became a point of controversy, so it is interesting, at least, that it was deployed here. bd2412 T 14:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that "thoughts" and "prayers" are words understood in context and certainly fall within the overlinking policy. However, the phrase "thoughts and prayers" has taken on a distinct connotation within the political climate, especially in reference to tragic events. If "thoughts and prayers" were indeed such an easily understood term (including the wider debate about its use), then why is there an article about the subject? Closetsingle (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have to ask why this is relevant from the President since it's offered for literally every tragedy, though. It's not unique, notable or worth even saying at this point. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think you just answered your own question.- MrX 🖋 01:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)