Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 3

Coordinates
Interactive mapping tools such as Google Maps can be useful in understanding an event such as this, and coordinates are Wikipedia's way of providing easy access to those tools. This article currently does not provide coordinates, presumably because there are at least five widely-dispersed locations involved. There are several ways to approach this at this article: Which approach do editors prefer? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can require readers to go to the Nova Scotia article and click on the coordinates there. How likely is it that that will occur to them? Is this a reasonable expectation?
 * Some articles that have multiple locations provide separate coordinates for each. An example is Christchurch mosque shootings, but it has only two locations. Would five be too much?
 * We can add coordinates here that point to the approximate center of the multiple locations, and use a low precision (d.d°) to imply the wide geographical area, per WP:COORDPREC. This concept was applied at 2014 Isla Vista killings, although its geographical area was smaller so it uses a higher precision (d.ddd°).


 * Second option - That seems to be the most realistic for me. Love of Corey (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, we have already soundly rejected showing specific street addresses for victims' homes. How do you give separate coordinates without pointing to specific structures, which is essentially the same thing? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Identifying the precise locations of shootings might also identify people's actual residential addresses, which raises WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:AVOIDVICTIM concerns.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought we were talking about the towns affected, not actual addresses. Love of Corey (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, I was unclear on that point. Read on. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can something be done in the form of how a heat map shows areas, however doesn't give out addresses? Air Java (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK we have no way to do that in a way that provides easy access to interactive mapping tools, which is the goal here. The article already shows the locations of the respective towns ("areas"), but in a form that doesn't allow you to access the mapping tools. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can identify locations down to the Postal Code or town (perhaps neighbourhood). We just do not want to be too precise with locations when they occur at private homes.  I do not think those concerns generally apply when we are talking about business locations (ie a gas-station, side of a highway etc).  Those generally will not trigger the same privacy concerns.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think we can drop option 2 from consideration. The example given above, Christchurch mosque shootings, does not present such privacy issues. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose we could provide the coordinates of each town, but we would have to identify them as such for clarity. As compared to option 3, I'm not convinced that would be that much more useful from the standpoint of using a mapping tool, enough so to justify at least ten lines in the infobox. Mostly I'm just trying to get the reader to the general area of the globe in a mapping tool. I would use the dim: parameter to show a smaller initial view than, say, the entire province. It would be just "wide" enough to encompass all of the locations and a little "margin". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the map already in the article provides access to OpenStreetMap (OSM), an interactive mapping tool (IMT), via its "Full screen" link at the bottom. One could argue that that makes coordinates redundant and unnecessary. They could also argue that OSM marks the towns (without naming them, however) and other IMTs would not. I would respond that they have good points, while adding that:
 * OSM is a relatively primitive IMT, providing only basic features.
 * Some readers have invested considerable time learning the unique features of their IMT-of-choice (I have, Google Maps), they are more comfortable using it, and they would prefer to use it, not OSM. This number is obviously growing as tech-challenged readers are replaced by new generations who are tech-savvy by age 5.
 * Location-related Wikipedia articles usually have coordinates and it stands to reason that many readers expect to see them.
 * I therefore feel that both mapping methods have their advantages, I see little reason not to provide both, and I think the article will be improved by the addition of coordinates. Unless there is consensus against it, I plan to implement option 3 above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My learning process continues. If you click on "Full screen" at the bottom, you then have an "External maps" button in the bottom right, and that gives you access to other IMTs including Google Maps. That largely negates my first and second bullet points above, significantly weakening my argument. To whatever extent readers can reasonably be expected to figure this out on their own, coordinates would in fact be largely redundant, so I'm suspending my plans for coordinates while still interested in other comments. I don't feel that the mix of the two methods site-wide is good for readers, but that's a discussion for a different venue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Name wounded cop?
Like Wortman and Stevenson, "the individual in question" has been mentioned freely by police on the record. No apparent privacy concerns. Would make our story about he and the aforementioned two easier to explain. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I feel inclined to agree. Love of Corey (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not notable people. How does naming them help our readers to understand what happened? Jim Michael (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not any people, he's the one injured officer whom we already (vaguely) describe in what happened between these three people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No apparent privacy concerns. WP:BLPNAME: "Presumption in favor of privacy" means we don't have to show or explain a privacy issue, but we can debate whether a "merely wounded" cop is "loosely involved". I could be wrong, but I'm skeptical that naming him is the only way to make the story sufficiently easy to explain. Happy to help find a different solution to any clarity problem there. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But he's not loosely-involved or low-profile, he's the wounded Mountie in a national tragedy on every major network for a straight week. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How would naming him improve the article? Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely low-profile in my understanding of the term, which I believe refers to his "profile" outside the context of this event. He was very likely barely known to the public before being wounded here, hence low-profile. As I said, we can debate loosely involved. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, he's nowhere near notable enough for his own article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither are/were Wortman, Thomson, Stevenson or Leather, but naming helps distinguish them more efficiently than appending adjectives to their jobs, now that they've been highly profiled (not Thomson so much). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wortman is named because he is the prime actor, and because the perp is always named, pretty much without exception. We even name suspected perps. Dead cops can be named, I have no issue with that. As for the others, I haven't looked into them but ease-of-explanation alone is a terrible reason to name a person in a Wikipedia article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the cop who found the prime suspect. This is the cop who unwittingly put the dead cop on her path. Not merely wounded, a high-profile figure. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no issue naming the deceased Stevenson. The injured officer does not deserve to spend the rest of his life responding to "are you that guy in the Wikipedia shooting article?" He has a right to privacy once this matter is done. WWGB (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people he'll meet won't need to ask, he's been IDed repeatedly across his country (where nobody calls it the "Wikipedia shooting article"). Also, there's no shame in getting shot. Per many media, even in your country, that's the most heroic part of the job, the sacrifice. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I confess I haven't had the time to learn much about the events, so I didn't know that. I'll concede on "loosely involved" and therefore on BLPNAME. I'll leave other opposition to my distinguished colleagues and withdraw to wipe some tiny bits of egg off my face. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO Stevenson is prominent enough to be named. Being injured doesn't seem to rise to that level, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the RCMP Constable should be identified by name as this information is widely available in many good quality sources such as National Post. One example can be seen here. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cst. Chad Morrison should be named. He provided valuable information over police radio as to the location of the suspect while on his way to seek emergency treatment at a Paramedic Base. His transmission(s) alerted Cst. Stevenson who rammed the mock up cruiser minutes later.  Aloha27  talk  18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He was there for a prearranged meeting with Stevenson. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Morrison actually thought the mock up cruiser was Stevenson's unit which is why he allowed the suspect to pull alongside. At that point the killer opened fire.  Aloha27  talk  12:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And we'll never know for sure whether Stevenson was driving in that direction to meet him or Wortman, but she was a police officer in a police car with a police radio during an "officer shot by fake officer" call, so safe to assume she knew plans had changed well before the crash. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I had read that Morrison and Stevenson had arranged to meet which was why Morrison thought the killer's car was indeed Stevenson's.  Aloha27  talk  16:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. I just meant that after Morrison got shot, Stevenson probably heard. So she kept heading that way, but not to meet him anymore. A sentence in the article saw some back-and-forth about that yesterday, thought it was connected to Bus stop's commment, maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Archiving now 3 days
We previously reduced the archiving to 1 day, due to the fast paced nature of the talk page and its size (now 153,082 bytes and 18 discussions). I guess 3 days is fine for now, but the talk page is getting up there and only growing. We will have to keep an eye. Perhaps it will shorten up once the constipation caused by failing to move the page has been dealt with.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re TOC size, even thirty or forty level-2's are manageable. Re file size, many talk pages stay up around 400K and nobody sees a problem with that (although many editors need to learn how to comment less verbosely). It's unwise to assume a thread has gone dormant when it hasn't received a comment in 24 hours. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We can always archive individual threads manually when it's clear they're no longer active. Unarchiving discussions when there's been a brief lull in activity is the greater hassle in my opinion. Activity will naturally die down over time, and then the talk page can easily be culled. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 *  Reply - Can we PLEEEEEEEEEEASE reset archiving to ONE day, now that the talk page is up to over 200 kB? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain why 200 is unacceptable while 400 is routine at many high-participation articles. If your device or internet connection is too slow to handle 200, I suggest upgrading your device or internet connection. This is 2020, not 2002. This page cannot function effectively with 1-day archival, or even 2-day. Even 3-day excludes a lot of editors who can't or don't care to participate that frequently. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dealing with the constipation of this section would be quite helpful in bringing this talk page back to a more manageable size, if there is a WP:BOLD administrator out there paying attention. ;)--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)