Talk:2017 Finsbury Park van attack

Archive dates

Why are archived cites being added when the original cites aren't dead ? .... This is Paul WWGB... –Davey2010^Talk 23:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I have previously asked whether it's necessary to writ for articles to be dead before archiving them, and have been told no per WP:LINKROT. Now I find myself being accused of having WP:PREFERENCES by someone who appears to have WP:PREFERENCES. Very strange. But in any case I'm going to go back to WP:HELPDESK and ask again. This is Paul (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know archive cites should only be added after the original dies, Admittingly I always add archived cites for Twitter (because they can easily be deleted) but other than that as I said generally they shouldn't be, Thanks for replying anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)re

Here's the previous discussion I had on this topic a couple of months ago. Perhaps there's an RFC to be had on this. This is Paul (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's still unclear why you choose to archive the cites on so many articles. Most other editors do not do this. It is not policy to do so. So why do you think it necessary, when there are millions of articles without web archives? Sorry, I just don't get it. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Most other editors haven't objected so I kind of don't get why you would, and particularly with such vehemence. You mention page loading speeds, but I suspect that probably has more to do with download speed rather than the length of the pages themselves. To me it would seem like WP:COMMONSENSE to take a proactive approach to this. But we can agree to disagree I suppose. This is Paul (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Davey2010, how are you doing? Didn't know in advance you were discussing this, otherwise would have left a message on your talk page. I've left a detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Use of IABot. In essence, editors should be creating archive links for each citation right at the time of inserting the citation, when the link is alive and kicking. Unfortunately, editors including me are lazy and can't be mandated to archive (in the same way as using proper referencing templates is good form, but can't be mandated). And logically, how can one archive a link's contents once it is already dead? (yes, there are solutions given at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing and repairing dead links; but that's like trying to bolt the door after...) I would hope to see support for Paul rather than objection. And as I enquired, hope all is well with you and family. Warmly, Lourdes 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Easy - If a cite dies you can go to Wayback Machine where their system would've no doubt saved it, If it hasn't then well we're buggered, Bulk archiving gives the impression that cite is dead when it's not - That aside I strongly object to mass-archiving cites that as I said aren't dead, If editors want to mass archive cites then there needs to be a world wide consensus for it as opposed to a few people. –Davey2010^Talk 03:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said, Davey. Bulk archiving does create a false impression of multiple dead links, plus the extra URLs makes the page slower to load, especially on handhelds. It's the creation of an archive that's important, not the linking of one to every source whether dead or alive. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davey and WWGB, I've written this at Help desk too. Per WP:LINKROT, "The effort required to prevent link rot is significantly less than the effort required to repair or mitigate a rotten link. Therefore, prevention of link rot strengthens the encyclopedia." I'm not quite sure why you both are opposing Paul's efforts to mitigate this issue before links rot (and are supporting post-rot efforts, which is clearly unproductive). WWGB, if handhelds are opening slower because of a few additional archival citations, that's probably not the fault of the additional archival citations. These are not additional heavily loaded pictures but simply text. It's almost equivalent to saying not to write too much in an article as handhelds won't open the article. Davey, saying that archiving gives the impression that a cite is dead when it's not, and therefore opposing it, sounds very odd and goes completely against the philosophy of WP:LINKROT. If you want a "world-wide" consensus (you probably meant "site-wide"), it's clearly not required – however, I'm not going to force you to change your or WWGB's opinion. I'll just mention that in my opinion, you both could re-consider your stand against such archiving which improves the encyclopedia. Thanks and cheers, Lourdes 07:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn was targeted

The guy said he hoped to kill Jeremy Corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/finsbury-park-attack-darren-osborne-kill-jeremy-corbyn SharabSalam (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

I personally think the name of the article should be moved from “2017 Finsbury Park attack” to Finsbury Park mosque van attack or 2017 Finsbury Park van attack because as it is the name is fairly vague and when comparing it to the names of other articles about attacks on mosques it is typically always “[place] mosque bombing” or “[place] mosque shooting”. TheCloggle222 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this change of title is that it now sounds like the Finsbury Park Mosque was attacked. The whole article in fact seems to have been written to encourage the confusion. The attack was on Muslim Welfare House, a smaller, unrelated Mosque around the corner. Mezigue (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

My intentions were for it to be read as Finsbury Park mosque as in an attack against a mosque in Finsbury Park, not the Finsbury Park Mosque. Even then, would the uncapitalized “mosque” not demonstrate that it was not the Finsbury Park Mosque but rather “a mosque in Finsbury Park” TheCloggle222 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)