→Recent edits: new section Tag: New topic |
|||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
The writing is unreadably bad in the section describing the events of the fight, not to mention largely unsourced and unlinked. I hope others have the time to improve it. It's very much below Wikipedia standards currently. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] ([[User talk:Moncrief|talk]]) 04:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) |
The writing is unreadably bad in the section describing the events of the fight, not to mention largely unsourced and unlinked. I hope others have the time to improve it. It's very much below Wikipedia standards currently. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] ([[User talk:Moncrief|talk]]) 04:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Recent edits == |
|||
{{u|AgntOtrth}}, please slow down and discuss your changes on the talk page before restoring them. While I understand wanting to change how facts are presented to improve text flow etc, {{U|FormalDude}} has reverted a number of the changes with good cause. It would be best to discuss potential changes here and get some buy in. Also, please keep in mind that we aren't supposed to interpret primary sources like videos of the events. If a RS says something that directly conflicts with the video or is misleading based on viewing the video the issue should be raised here where we can then evaluate things. We are allowed to argue that a RS got their facts wrong on the talk page. However, we can't correct them in the article nor can we add facts that we took from the video. If RSs didn't decide those facts were important then we shouldn't mention them. Anyway, given the back and forth nature of the edits please make suggestions here and get consensus before making additional changes. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:19, 2 September 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 03:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- ... that the 16-year-old "Black Aquaman" was celebrated for his swimming skills and defensive efforts in the Montgomery Riverfront brawl? Source: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2023/08/07/boston-tea-party-world-watches-montgomery-riverfront-brawl/70541358007/
Created by Teenyplayspop (talk). Nominated by CJ-Moki (talk) at 00:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Riverfront Brawl; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- ALT1: ... that the 16-year-old "Black Aquaman" was celebrated after he quickly swam from Harriott II (pictured) to a dock to defend in the Montgomery Riverfront brawl? Source: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/crime/2023/08/07/boston-tea-party-world-watches-montgomery-riverfront-brawl/70541358007/
- The article is new and long enough but the sourcing is inadequate, with multiple paragraphs missing references. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article looked much different than it does now when I first made this nomination. I know this isn't exactly the most desirable outcome, but I wish to withdraw this nomination. I'm sorry if I wasted other editors' time with this nomination. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Marking for closure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Use of shortened footnotes
@CJ-Moki: Not sure why this article uses shortened footnotes. I note that there is a book reference in the bibliography, but the web citations do not need to be shortened, particularly when you're working with a current event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @ElijahPepe: By my count, four books are in the bibliography. With the several books cited, it makes sense to use short citations, and the citation style should be consistent throughout. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's no expectation an article needs to use shortened footnotes for web citations. For example, I recently worked on Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case), where there's two books and dozens of web citations in the background section. Not using shortened footnotes consistently there allowed developments to be easily added. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Footnotes should not be used for news and web article links, only books. For web and news citation the long form should be used. The style does not have to be "consistent" between both. In fact, it is preferable to do the opposite. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and please use the Cite templates available in the editor window wherever possible. Wispinn (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. User:ElijahPepe/The New York Times uses shortened footnotes in the way that CJ-Moki is using them because there needs to be a separation of primary sources and secondary sources in a way that is very difficult with referring to references and embedding references in the reference list. CJ-Moki is not doing that, so it's not necessary in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- The NYT article is a long established article with countless references - this is a current event. It's really tricky to work with sources that are web/news links if they're shortened because you have to open up the previews to see what they are instead of getting a birds-eye glance at the list of sources and being able to check for what you're looking for. The templates/cite tool are set up to generate web/news citations that way Wispinn (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not arguing against what you're stating, but using shortened footnotes is appropriate for some articles. This is an article where it would not be appropriate given that it's a current event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- The NYT article is a long established article with countless references - this is a current event. It's really tricky to work with sources that are web/news links if they're shortened because you have to open up the previews to see what they are instead of getting a birds-eye glance at the list of sources and being able to check for what you're looking for. The templates/cite tool are set up to generate web/news citations that way Wispinn (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. User:ElijahPepe/The New York Times uses shortened footnotes in the way that CJ-Moki is using them because there needs to be a separation of primary sources and secondary sources in a way that is very difficult with referring to references and embedding references in the reference list. CJ-Moki is not doing that, so it's not necessary in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Footnotes should not be used for news and web article links, only books. For web and news citation the long form should be used. The style does not have to be "consistent" between both. In fact, it is preferable to do the opposite. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources, and please use the Cite templates available in the editor window wherever possible. Wispinn (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's no expectation an article needs to use shortened footnotes for web citations. For example, I recently worked on Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case), where there's two books and dozens of web citations in the background section. Not using shortened footnotes consistently there allowed developments to be easily added. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Alternative names, 'tongue in cheek' behavior
Hey folks, please do not include 'alternative names' (WP:POVNAMING) for the event, 'tongue in cheek' descriptions (WP:WORDS) of the event or other memey content (WP:V/SILLY). There have been a variety of these edits that have had to be reverted. Despite the "popular culture reaction", this article documents a serious act of violence amidst ongoing racial unrest. Wispinn (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Requested semi-protection status last night; was applied this morning through August 13th. Wispinn (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Most of that seemed to be CJ's edits Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
There should be no "names" because there is no established name for the incident. All are merely descriptive. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023
Please change the sentence "The assailants were white and the defendants predominantly black" to "The assailants were white and the defenders predominantly black." This is about a physical altercation, not a court case 172.103.208.205 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The writing in this article is subpar
The writing is unreadably bad in the section describing the events of the fight, not to mention largely unsourced and unlinked. I hope others have the time to improve it. It's very much below Wikipedia standards currently. Moncrief (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits
AgntOtrth, please slow down and discuss your changes on the talk page before restoring them. While I understand wanting to change how facts are presented to improve text flow etc, FormalDude has reverted a number of the changes with good cause. It would be best to discuss potential changes here and get some buy in. Also, please keep in mind that we aren't supposed to interpret primary sources like videos of the events. If a RS says something that directly conflicts with the video or is misleading based on viewing the video the issue should be raised here where we can then evaluate things. We are allowed to argue that a RS got their facts wrong on the talk page. However, we can't correct them in the article nor can we add facts that we took from the video. If RSs didn't decide those facts were important then we shouldn't mention them. Anyway, given the back and forth nature of the edits please make suggestions here and get consensus before making additional changes. Springee (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)