Talk:2023 Monterey Park shooting

Moved from User talk:Mudwater § MOS:BOLDREDIRECT

 – — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI:

@Locke Cole: Hello! Thanks for the note. Yes, I didn't realize that the name of the person redirected to that section of the article. I agree that MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says to bold the name in such cases. I just added a note about this to the top of that section, here. I believe that will help both readers who end up there via the redirect, and editors such as myself who don't realize that the redirect exists. (I would have used a {{Redirect}} template instead of text, but that seems to require a "for other uses" clause.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on the hatnote in this specific instance, but if you need to create a custom hatnote like that in the future, be aware that {{

HTML comment in the source and hope it goes noticed by other editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Locke Cole: Thanks for the tip on the hatnote template, I've changed the article to use that, here. I do think the hatnote is appropriate and helpful in a case like this. Then editors don't have to figure out what's going on, as you described, and it also makes it more obvious to readers why they ended up where they did. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: Hello! About this, please see the discussion above. Basically the hatnote will help editors understand why the person's name is in bold, and it will help readers understand why they landed on that section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a hatnote AND a bolded name, it's one or the other. Please decide which one you support. WWGB (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: Is that the usual practice? To have either a hatnote or bolding, but not both? If yes, I think the hatnote is better, definitely. (Pinging @Locke Cole: who posted above.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the above discussion here, from my user talk page. Please add additional posts below this line: — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:R#ASTONISH don't indicate anything beyond the bolded redirect name. My preference is to follow the MOS. I would support an HTML comment so future editors might see the reason for the bolded name and not continually remove it as has been done so far. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. Per

WP:R#PLA, "it will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" and "If the redirected term could have other meanings, a hatnote should be placed at the top of the target article or targeted section that will direct readers to the other meanings or to a relevant disambiguation page". Since "Huu Can Tran" does not have other meanings, a hatnote is not necessary. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd recommend to redirect to the top of the page, where his name is mentioned with an overview of why he is notable. Going directly to the "Perpetrator" section doesn't tell the reader why he's notable, and avoids the reader wondering "which page am I on"? —Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the perpetrators name is mentioned in the lead, however, the Perpetrator section is where one would expect to go if they wanted to learn about the person in more detail (and is the content that one would see if a separate article existed). This is why we skip there when coming from

Huu Can Tran and bold his name in that section, not the lead. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I still think it's a lot better to have a hatnote at the top of the section, and not have the person's name in boldface, like this. That makes it more obvious to readers why they landed there, and it doesn't confuse editors about why the name is bolded. It's true that the name being in boldface is allowed by

I want to be as clear as I can here:

WP:RFC). Until you get consensus for such a change, I suggest restoring it to the manner we prescribe. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. But... (1)

WP:HATNOTE says "The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because: · They were redirected...." That applies here. The article they are on is "2023 Monterey Park shooting", and the one they were looking for is "Huu Can Tran". (2) MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:HATNOTE are guidelines. A guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." For this article to be different than what the guidelines suggest, it's not necessary to change the guidelines themselves, we just have to get a consensus (or at least a majority) of editors to agree that for this article it's better to do something else. Though again, I do think that using a hatnote, and not bolding the name, does fall within the guidelines. (3) I agree that a consistent look for our readers should be one of our goals. But as a reader myself, the use of the boldface type here, without a hatnote, seems incongruous and inconsistent with what I've seen elsewhere. Admittedly that's a subjective judgement on my part. Therefore (4) I am hoping that additional editors comment on this topic, and the more the merrier. That would make it easier to see how a larger group of editors interpret the guidelines, and what they think would be the best course of action in this particular case. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You appear to be misunderstanding

WP:VPR, not here. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the detailed response. I'd still like to see opinions from more editors, in addition to the four who have posted in this section so far (viz. Locke Cole, WWGB, Bagumba, and Mudwater). — Mudwater ⁽Talk) 02:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Brenton Tarrant. However, as User:Locke Cole

explained, a landing hatnote is only used when the redirected name is ambiguous. For example, had the Monterey Park perpetrator been named "Will Smith", then the following landing hatnote would be appropriate:

"Will Smith" redirects here. For other uses, see Will Smith (disambiguation).

Since "Huu Can Tran" is unambiguous, a hatnote is unwarranted. I do not think any experienced editor will give you a different answer. WWGB (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB: Thanks, that's very helpful. What then would be the basis or criterion for deciding whether the name should be bolded or not, in general, and for this article? I see some discussion about that at [[Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 7#[Un]Bolding]] and at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings/Archive 5#Remove Suspects Name, but nothing too definitive, though I might have missed it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many New Zealanders detest Brenton Tarrant for what he did, so it is not surprising that many NZ editors would not even want to see his name in bold. In other articles, it just needs editors to reach consensus not to bold a redirect at its landing place, for whatever reason is considered appropriate. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should unbold the perpetrator's name, and honestly we should get rid of the redirect. Valereee (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Page view statistics for

  WP:RFD is the place, not here. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Apparently the fact that a hero had never seen a gun before isn't news. Let us consider the following. 1. There is plenty of information available that shows people often "freeze up" like deer in headlights in stressful or dangerous situations. 2. An individual who hasn't seen guns helps save lives. 3. How is this not a significant part of this article and the overall story?Justanother2 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reports that Tsay was frozen up or deerlike. This scenario is just your opinion. No evidence that Tsay never seeing a gun impacted on his actions. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read what was said. Often people "freeze up" or act like deer caught in headlights. That's why this was extraordinary and part of the reason to include it. He behaved heroically having never seen a gun. He acted quickly, deftly, and showed no inexperience.Justanother2 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does including the Chinese names contribute to the article [1]? I'm not sure if they would all be comfortable with having them on Wikipedia, even if they have been released to the LA Times. Vacosea (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is needed,

WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

While foreign names are typically reported in biographies, there is no need to convert every naming of a person born in a country with a different character set. WWGB (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a paragraph and citation needed tag, relating to the preemption of NFL studio programming on the day after the shooting. I wrote down that "this was frankly off the top of my head." This is not true; I did not even know that KCBS-TV didn't air the NFL studio shows until a poster on Discord told me. I'm sorry for getting carried away; however, it is true that the Discord post didn't come with an outside citation, therefore one is still required. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]