Talk:Man attacks people, kills 7 in Akihabara, Tokyo

Stop

Please stop modifying this article. This story is from June 8, it should have become static. Wikinews is not Wikipedia. --SVTCobra 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What is going on with this article i mean so many changes ??? --72.73.74.205 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. I guess most of the possible related issues can be handled in other news articles. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

IAWTC. This is the fourth time this has hit my RSS feed. --202.7.166.181 07:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Title

Why was the title so severely degraded? This incident amounts to a lot more than assault. The previous title was much more informative. --SVTCobra 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I modified the title again to be more descriptive as to what actually happened. Nihonjoe (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Being informative is a good point. But, the number of the injured was officially corrected to 10, as I wrote in the edit summary. Please check the reason even if you are not satisfied. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the most news-worthy part of this story that 7 people were killed? To omit that from the title makes the article seem trivial. --SVTCobra 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will make another, probably the final rename to "Man attacks people, kills 7 in Akihabara, Tokyo"

I knew "Pedestrians ..." might be a temp title. But, after that Nihonjoe and I omitted the number of the dead though it didn't change.

Hmm.... Personally I think how many died is important but, the injured may include from 'just scratched' to 'almost fatally injured.' We are editors, not medical doctors. It's not always wise to stick to the line drawn between the dead and the not-dead.

Does anyone remember how many people lost their homes by Kobe earthquake? The number of the dead was large, so it alone has been spreading as if it were the only datum to represent the disaster, even while journalists don't forget the survivors. Effects of headlines or leads are sometimes not foreseeable. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard

Dear Nihonjoe, thanks for coming to make this news article better.

When you rename an article, click "What links here" on the left to check for double-redirects, and fix them if necessary. A redirect to a redirect does not work.

Please refrain from pressing your way in the name of "standard English." If you really hope to make wiki articles better, please pay attention to other opinions. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As to "yelling at people":

Sources say the suspect began to yell later, not just after he left the truck. That's why I discard it. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As to "fill" and "flood":

For that sentence, both can be used either in active or passive voice as standard English. Active "flood" can imply "overwhelm," so I prefer to passive "was flooded." --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As to "then" "so" "for" and "as":

Why I used not "so" but "then" is to prevent readers from taking the part like "so many newspapers...." Because you discarded "then," I used "for." A word "as" easily can be ambiguous. To show a reason, I personally prefer to other expressions for wiki articles. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As to "avenue" and "street":

Both are common as standard English. I just used different words, the former for the north-south road and the latter for the east-west road at the scene, as is common in some U.S.A. cities. You used "30 metres" to mean 30 m, so I guess your "standard" is somehow British, but even Oxford dictionaries list an abbreviation "St." or "St" for "Street," without an American use tag. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Avenue" is the most common translation as found on signs in Japan. Only major roads in Japan are named. "Metres" is the most common way to write the word in the world as most places use the British spelling. Even the WIkipedia article uses it. I'm not sure what you are getting at with the whole abbreviations bit. 72.8.116.110 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've said either is OK. Please read it carefully, and be sure I've been not discarding "Avenue." I just followed customs in some U.S.A cities, as I've mentioned above. I have already accepted "Kanda Myōjin Avenue." Let's not use this page for mudslinging.

The edit summary of the article insists "Avenue" is common, but doesn't show any evidence to exclude "Street." Such an argument has nothing to make wiki articles better.

I know a British spelling "metres" is OK, but I replaced it to avoid mixture of dialects. (My spelling checker is set for U.S.A. English.)

Oxford University Press is a British publisher, and some of its dictionaries use tags like "AmE" to show that's an American use and not common in Britain. Listing an abbreviation like "St." or "St" for "Street" without the tag is to show it's common to use this word for a street name at least in Britain and in U.S.A. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)