Talk:Murder of Lynette White

Lead too long

The introduction has more than four paragraphs; it should be shortened. --George Ho (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This is a complex case covering some 30 years, and is summarised in 5 paragraphs. Keri (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What about WP:LEAD? --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What about it? As quoted above, it says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview...etc" Regarding length, it says: "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs" (my emphasis). So this is 5 paras instead of 4; negligible. Keri (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, the lead is neither too long nor too short: "A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have moved one paragraph to the Appeal section in an attempt to placate you and end this discussion. Keri (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Normally, the lead should be no more than four. After Talk:Napoleon#Lead too long?, I wonder if an extra lead paragraph is needed again. The murder is more simple, while the investigations went screwy and wrong, making the topic more complex than it should be. The overview is good; maybe you were right. I could have bared five paragraphs, but I liked the current version more. Maybe add back a journalist's re-opening the case in a few or several sentences in one of four paragraphs or as an extra paragraph? --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Keri and George, the lede remains much too long and needs to be pared down into even more of a summary form. There is simply too much detail. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Then why is intro with five paragraphs okay for Napoleon and current intro of this article considered too many details, Winkelvi? --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing a huge, legendary world-history subject such as Napoleon to a 1990 murder no one outside of Great Britain ever heard of? Really? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

If you've never "heard of" it, your opinion is moot. Keri (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Compare with Death of Ian Tomlinson: a FA about a far less complex news event, spanning a significantly shorter period of time. Keri (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

How does that edit look? More concise while still conveying the salient points? Keri (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confident that four paragraphs is enough (id est five is too much) for the article... for now. Napoleon is a French historic figure. I thought that biography had no exceptions, but consensus disagrees. This murder case is more... way more recent than Napoleon. And the intro concisely discusses important points without too many details. I will discuss further at another page soon. George Ho (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging separate 2000s into one and then separate 2010s into one

The article looks clutter with separate years. Why not 2000s and 2010s? Or how about year-less sections? --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's fine as it is. Keri (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Lynette White. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120804182841/http://www.fittedinproject.org/aboutus.html to http://www.fittedinproject.org/aboutus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

BBC article claiming new developments

My browser can't handle all the bells and whistles of this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Lynette_White_Cardiff_Murder . Hopefully someone who can use it will see this. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

'Murder'

@Martinevans123 Only one of the three mentions of 'murder' refers to the legal situation. The other two are based solely on a dictionary definition. I am happy for the link to remain under 'charges' in the infobox, and there is no need for multiple links anyway. The others should not be linked. Bryan Krippner (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's debateable. But I will not revert you again if you retain the link in the infobox. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)