Talk:List of fatal shark attacks in California

Overly detailed

Although I do not think the subject matter of this list article is trivial, there does seem to be an excessive amount of detail be provided for some of the entries. Not every bit of factual information needs to be included per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. One or two sentences summarizing each attack is probably all that is needed. Most of the content seems to just be paraphrased from the cited PDFs which seems OK, but Wikipedia articles, including list articles, are not really intended to be newspaper like accounts of the topics they cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ryan Shakiba: I appreciate you removing some of the extraneous detail and I am certainly not claiming to be an expert with respect to either shark attacks or Wikipedia, but I still do not see the need for the amount of detail you're adding for some of these attacks. The narrative found in the pdfs you're citing does not need to be re-created in this article; only the essential elements are needed. The date, place, type of shark, person attacked and other basics are fine, but the readers do not need to know much more than that.

For example, with respect to the attack on Albert Kogler, Jr., the amount of information and detail you've added is not really needed. A simple statement such as "Attack took place at Baker Beach, San Francisco County when Kogler and a friend were swimming. Kolger was pulled to shore and transported to hospital where he later died" is more than sufficient. The reader does not need to know who his friend was, that she was Catholic, that she baptized him, that she received a medal, etc. The reader does not even need to know what Koger may have screamed when attacked. This is all superfluous information and the more of it you add for these entries, the more various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as MOS:QUOTE, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:PSTS, WP:BLPPRIMARY, etc., come into play. These entries should not read like a plot summary for a fictional piece of work; only the most basic and essential information is really needed. Going into such detail might be appropriate for a stand-alone article about a particular attack, but is not something appropriate for a list article per WP:DETAIL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Marchjuly here. The level of detail is way excessive for a list article, and at least 80% of it should be pruned away. Any reader who wants that much detail can read the reference. The "wall of text" appearance of the list deters the casual reader. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It looks like almost all of the attacks listed in this particular article can also be found in List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in the United States. I'm not sure if that makes this list unnecessary, but the entries for most of the attacks in the US article certainly do not go into as much detail as the ones in this article do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I did edit it. However, in The United States list, go down to the 1930's section. You will see a Joseph Troy Jr. entry. In that, the Details section are very long. It includes a lot of details. In fact, it looks like a someone just copied and pasted a news article in their. I don't see anyone trying to take that down. Ryan Shakiba (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Shakiba. One thing to try and remember about Wikipedia is that it can be pretty much edited by anyone at anytime from anywhere in the world who has an Internet connection and the inclination to do so. There are over 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia and Wikipedians are all volunteers just trying to do whatever we can to help improve the encyclopedia. This unfortunately means that lots of articles get created that probably shouldn't have been created and lots of content gets added to articles that probably shouldn't have been added. That's why trying to argue other stuff exists is not always a good idea when it comes to discussing article content. Certain niche articles may only be being watched by a small number of editors. So, problems, if there are any, may go unnoticed for years.

We as editors are encourage to be bold with our editing and fix problems where we can. However, since you are quite new to Wikipedia and seem to only be focusing on this article, I felt that it might be best to try and not bite instead of simply jumping in and boldly removing lots of what you had added. FWIW, I asked Cullen328 to take a look because he is a very experienced editor who has worked on all types of articles and is very straightforward when it comes to assessing things like this. If he felt this level of detail was a non-issue, he would've clearly said so. I am happy to work with you on shortening the descriptions and try and find some middle ground through talk page discussion if you like. Neither of us need the other's permission to edit the article and make any changes we deem necessary, but editing is supposed to be collaborative so working together will most likely lead to a better result. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to make my article better. I know you 2 are very experienced editors, so I am happy you 2 can help me. Ryan Shakiba (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Ryan Shakiba. I think it's important to clarify one thing about Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not "owned" by any single editor, regardless of whether said editor created the article or has been the primary contributor to the article. So, there are no "my articles" on Wikipedia; anyone can edit this article at anytime and no one particular editor has any sort of final editorial control over what is added/removed from articles. You can avoid possible problems with other editors if you don't refer to articles in such a way.

When there are content disputes between editors, we are encouraged to try and resolve things as explained in Wikipedia:DR. Since not everyone who edits a Wikipedia article may do so with the best of intentions, we as editors can completely revert obvious cases of vandalism when we come across them without discussion; for the most part, however, we are encouraged to try to work collaboratively with other to improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia. This does not mean we are required to discuss every edit we make before we make it, but it does mean that we have to try and assume good faith when it comes to the edits of others and not assume that our way is always the only way. If you're bold and then reverted, then the next step is usually to discuss per WP:BRD. As I and Cullen328 posted above, there is an excessive amount of detail for each of these entries. This is a list article, so only the most essential information is really needed which basically means only a few sentences at most. Readers who interested in learning more details about a specific attack can find that information in the source cited for each attack. For example, this is basically all that I feel is needed Solario and Ransom attacks:

• Attack occurred while Solorio was surfing at Surf Beach in Santa Barbara County. He was pulled to shore by a friend, but was pronounced dead at the scene. Based on the bite through the surfboard, experts were able to determine that the shark was a Great White Shark, about 15–16 feet (4.5–5 meters) in length.
• Attack occured while Ransom was body boarding at Surf Beach in Santa Barbara County. He was pulled to shore by a friend, but was pronounced dead at the scene. Based on the severity of Ransoms wounds, experts were able to determine that the shark was a Great White Shark, about 17–18 feet (5–5.5 meters) in length and weighing about 2 tons.

Since each of the "case investigations" cited for these attacks may have been written by different individuals, some of the phrasing used may also be different. We should, however, try to be fairly consistent with each entry. We should also try to avoid any WP:PEA, WP:EUPHEMISMS and WP:ALLEGED in each entry as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@MarchJuly how does it look now? I know you are a expert at this, so it would be great if you could help out with this. Ryan Shakiba (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ryan Shakiba: Just curious as to your reasons for removing the additional citations to reliable sources I added for each attack. These were citations to various independent, secondary reliable sources, such The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, etc., about the specific attacks. Did you just remove them in error or do feel there's something unreliable about them? You also removed various wikilinks I added per WP:UNDERLINK and conversion templates I added per MOS:CONVERSIONS. These were all edits I made to try and bring the article more inline with Wikipedia's manual of style, etc.

Also , as I (and Cullen328) commented above above, this is a list article where excessive details is not really needed. If the reader wants to find out more specific information about each attack, then they can get that from the sources which have been cited. Essential information would be things like who was attacked, where the attack occurred, what type of shark, etc. Too much information about the victims wounds, etc. is not really need to be mentioned per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and expressions which indicate doubt, etc. such as "probably" or "likely" , etc. should probably be avoided per WP:ALLEGED. In addition, we also do not really need to name anyone other than the victims because such people may be still alive which means WP:BLP will need to be taken into consideration. It's best to simply stick with the names of the victims and simply refer to others in a non-descriptive manner. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not your sources that are bad. It's your edits. I realized that originally, I did have to much detail. I did remove most of the content, but you are deleting more of it that is needed. Now, I do realize that when I am editing Wikipedia, I understand that people can edit my article without my consent, and I respect that. So, I will not take away you edits. However, I will say that I hate you for doing so, and that I hope you never destroy anything I make again @Marchjuly Ryan Shakiba (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As I tried to explain above Ryan Shakiba, there are no "my articles" on Wikipedia, so it's completely possible to disagree with my edits without hating me for making them. I may have removed too much detail from some of the entries, but I did so in good faith because I felt what was there was still too excessive. It's OK for us to disagree on that point and try to find some kind of happy medium through discussion. However, when you post I will say that I hate you for doing so, and that I hope you never destroy anything I make again, you seem to be assuming bad faith on my part and not focusing on the content of my edits. Not only did you remove the additional sources I added we you re-added more detail, you also undid some of the formatting/style improvements (such as templates, wikilinks, correcting capitalization, etc.) I made as well. So, I just reverted your edits mainly to undo your undoing of those improvements since they were not content related at all, but technical improvements which were only made to try and bring the article more inline with relevant parts of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The amount of detail for each entry, however, is not something set in stone and is something we can continue to try and resolve through discussion. If you would prefer, you can even ask for a third opinion or another editor to come and take a look at the article to provide a fresh take on things. A better and more balanced article is easier to achieve when more people are actively involved in improving it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You know what? Never mind. Your edits are great. I do not hate you in any way. Marchjuly Ryan Shakiba (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)