Talk:Hurricane Nate weakens as it reaches United States

Less deadly
who claims it is less deadly? What makes you think it is okay to claim that in headline. It should be explained properly, and for headline, it is better if we don't jump to conclusions. acagastya PING ME! 21:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to change the headline. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See, that is not the solution. You have to do this. Though reviewer would do it before publishing, it is your duty to do this. (Besides, this [I assume] afternoon, renaming created a mess, so, don't say it out loud) acagastya PING ME! 21:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Hurricane Nate weakens, still challenging as it reaches the United States". I felt "weakens" works a little better here than "less deadly". —mikemoral (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good, Mike M. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your choice of words troubles me, Acagastya. No it is not my duty to change the title. "Duty" is far too strong a word and when you use it I feel like you're giving orders or making demands.  Whoever posts the article should provide a reasonably good title whose content can be verified from the sources and text, which is what I did.  However, that does not mean that no one else can change it to an even better title if they want to.  Of course other people are allowed to change the article; this is a collaborative project.  It also doesn't mean that you can't suggest or request improvements or point out what you believe to be a flaw.  But "You must do this! It is your duty. What makes you think this title is okay?" is not a suggestion. (NOTE: I'm reading "What makes you think it is okay to claim this?" as a rhetorical question, meaning "It is not okay to claim this." If I am mistaken and you really do want me to tell you why I think it's okay, just let me know.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I chose to use the word carefully. Though this is a volunteer project, we should have some commitment and sense of responsibility to our work. As a volunteer it is not hard for a reviewer to allow some incorrect information to pass in. Why do you think pizero goes through the tough task of review which consumes so much time and effort? It is because when we get special rights that becomes our duty whenever we are on-wiki. No one can complain, but you have to do it. Though you don’t have admin or reviewer rights, as an author, you should take responsibility for good titles. Anyone is free to rename the article. But when someone pointed out the problem, it’ll as an author, you should address it as soon as possible. And when I asked that question, I asked in the tone I would have questioned if USA Today or the BBC would have said something similar. That title was not correct. And you would not like it, but you really should not let such things slip in. For someone who has written so many articles, this is not what we expect. Just like how you changed “eighteen” to “18” in the other article, or made Sindh a town without fact-checking. (That reminds me of the geography related discussion we had.) acagastya PING ME! 00:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss as to why you would think the word "deadly" involves jumping to a conclusion. It literally means "causing or able to cause death." (It also has a bunch of slang meanings, but "lethal"/"causing death" is by far the most common.) As you can see in the first sentence of the article, the hurricane killed people in Latin America but then became weaker and did not kill anyone in the United States. "It caused less death" <=> "it became less deadly." "Deadly" is not a conclusion; it's just a concise way of saying what happened.
 * The above should establish that the title I provided upon creating this article did not violate Wikinews' policies. If an otherwise acceptable title troubles you in any way, or if you just think it could be better, and you want it changed right now, it is perfectly fine for you change it yourself.  If you just don't want to do it yourself, that's fine too, but it's also fine for me.
 * As for the other article, I changed "Sindh town" to "Sindh, a town." Those are functionally equivalent in English, as in the expression "London town." If there is a factual problem, then it was already in the article before I gnomed it. No, volunteering for gnoming/proofreading does not obligate me to volunteer for fact-checking too.
 * One of the rules for dealing with numerals vs. words in English is "use the same kind of expression for the same kind of thing, especially when they're close together." (As in, "Room four had 6 students, room five had 27 students, and room twenty-six had 12 students.") Some style guides explicitly state that this should trump other rules. I checked Wikinews' style guide and then changed "eighteen people" to "18 people" because there was a "20 to 25 people" right below it. This makes the information easier for the reader to absorb.  I can provide a source if you feel the need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not say I had a problem with "deadly". We can not claim or conclude it is "less deadly", or "still challenging". If it is not established fact, is should suggest readers what is happening or going to happen. It got get worse, and cause more causalities, who knows. But that was not the primary focus. The primary focus is, we should not tell the readers what is likely to happen in these cases. Like for example, Portugal had never won Eurovision until Salvador Sobral won it. So, just by looking at the trend, we could not have an article saying "Not-so-favourite Portugal in Finals of Eurovision". A title, which is doing the guessing work makes us no different from those news articles which are click-baits. Writing a good headline is an art. If you want people to read the article just by looking at the headline, you need to do it in a much better way.

For the problem with Sindh -- the article said "Sindhi town of Sehwan", not Sindh town. Those are two different things. Sindh is not a city, to fit your analogy. It may not obligate you for fact-checking, but if you do not want to fact-check, do not change the meaning of the content, which makes no sense (just like how you did for the Istanbul Pride article). You are in-turn, making things harder for reviewers by that careless attitude. Yes, I have no objection calling it careless attitude because edits should help the reviewer, saving their time, not the opposite. If it is opposite, you are doing it wrong.

Coming to numbers, eighteen was mentioned in the beginning of the first sentence. 20-25 was almost at the end of the second sentence. I have adapted the style guide to my real life, and I prefer using words for numbers less than 20. (only in rare cases like discussing the position of a football club in league table, or the minute when something happened, I use numbers, that too, not always) Like how English (US) is spoken by so less people yet you do not change it for "information easier for the reader to absorb" looking at those spellings which we are not familiar with, this stands at its place. acagastya PING ME! 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that a gnome shouldn't change the meaning of the content. That is why I didn't.  The original phrasing already meant "Sindhi is a town in Sehwan." If that is not what the author meant, then it's better that the error was caught, though this is not the most efficient way to do it.  If there was any carelessness in that article, it was present before I got there.
 * The problem is that you accused me of doing something wrong by changing "eighteen" to "18." I did not.
 * You believe that describing a hurricane as "less deadly" is a conclusion. I do not.
 * It isn't appropriate for you to accuse me of carelessness or jumping to conclusions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sindhi town of Sehwan does not mean Sindh is a town. Well, tell me, what would you think "less deadly" means, and who is saying it is less deadly? If it is you who are saying, we can not do that. This is as good as saying x is approaching infinity, sin(1/x) sharply falling to zero. You just can't predict things like that. This is not the only thing of yesterday night, that bothered me, regarding carelessness. Some Canadian state apologising in 1985. And that incorrect fact was even published. These are not the things we can take lightly. It is carelessness, or negligence, which costs trustworthiness. acagastya PING ME! 22:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * /me notes that the "deadly" wording is gone from the headline. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)