Talk:Alleged ghost hunt in Toronto ends in death

Interesting story, great that you have a photo. A few comments:
 * No need to repeat 29 yrs old in first two sentences -- say it in one or the other.
 * Grammar quibble: "exploring the building" -> "another section..." Instead say, "jump from one section of the building to another"
 * Also, jumping and leaning sound like different activities...was she maybe trying to steady herself after a jump? or brace herself before a jump?
 * The "but" in the first sentence of the last paragraph doesn't make sense; continuing the investigation and drinking alcohol don't seem directly related.
 * If the police could not confirm they were hunting ghosts, what is the source that asserts that they were?

-Peteforsyth (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All sources say they were allegedly hunting ghosts. Police originally said that too, but cannot confirm it, So saying it is a report is valid. All the rest has been fixed :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 881139 [Passed]
Police are now saying it is NOT ghost-hunting at all, rather just drunken adventures; and are criticising the media for jumping on the "ghost hunting" train - I'd support rewording our article towards this end. Sherurcij 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to WN:ARCHIVE that's not going to happen. New developments would get a new article. Feel free to write one. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, one day after the story is written, we can't correct errors of fact? Since when? Sherurcij 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See WN:ARCHIVE: Articles which have been published for more than 36 hours should not undergo significant edits. This story is now three days old, way too late to make significant content changes. I think a new article would be more appropriate for updates/corrections. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like there's a little room for different interpretations in the word "significant." Without knowing precisely what change you're advocating, Sherucij, it's hard to evaluate whether or not it's "significant." Can you be a little more specific? -Peteforsyth (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Tempo, two days after I suggested it, it is indeed now three days (hell, now it's five days!). I'm not advocating for change now, I think it's a shame we didn't correct our errors at the time when the story was still on our front page with incorrect information. Sherurcij 01:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 24 hours later was long enough we should not completely rewrite the story. Updates after 24 hours get a new article. They are beyond the scope of a 'significant change'. To put it another way, if we simply updated it, no-one who read it would re-read it in the offchance of seeing new info and so most readers would never get to know. Also, given that articles are a snapshot of what was known at the time, no errors are reported here. The article keeps it as 'alleged' - which is exactly what was going on at the time. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)