Talk:Belgium stops telegram services

This is like an obituary or a sick person, or a time bomb explosion article -- we knew was going to happen. Now, it has happened.
•–• 09:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4372594 [Passed]

Revision 4372594 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I hesitated over the sourcing of the focal event here. My first thought was that, while we ask for two mutually independent sources corroborating the focal event, it is sometimes reasonable for one or more sources to anticipate the event while just one source bears witness that it really happened as anticipated. Then I found that Al Jaz, our witness-on-the-day, says the last telegram will be sent that day; so they didn't bear witness that it really happened. I poked around for a sanity check (outside the cited sources), and found nothing. Al Jaz had the last article I found on the subject. I note that when India ended their service in 2013, AP did it right, publishing an article the day after it happened. Google news had a listing for a later Al Jaz item about Proximus tweeting about the last message, but the target Al Jaz item doesn't seem to exist on the internet, and the Proximus twitter account doesn't mention the matter again after the December 12 tweet. This all made me very uncomfortable, but considering our options, I concluded there were really only two possibilities: (1) publish the article saying it happened, based on the evidence available; (2) not-ready the article, probably meaning that weak mainstream coverage prevents us from publishing although in theory we could email Proximus to ask whether it happened as scheduled. I didn't like these options. In the end I weaseled slightly, adding the words "as of" that just slightly alter the nuance of that lede sentence so that "yesterday" becomes part of the action (it was stopped-as-of-yesterday) rather than when the action happened (it was stopped, and when that happened was yesterday). I'd like to find better options for such a situation for future use. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4372594 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I hesitated over the sourcing of the focal event here. My first thought was that, while we ask for two mutually independent sources corroborating the focal event, it is sometimes reasonable for one or more sources to anticipate the event while just one source bears witness that it really happened as anticipated. Then I found that Al Jaz, our witness-on-the-day, says the last telegram will be sent that day; so they didn't bear witness that it really happened. I poked around for a sanity check (outside the cited sources), and found nothing. Al Jaz had the last article I found on the subject. I note that when India ended their service in 2013, AP did it right, publishing an article the day after it happened. Google news had a listing for a later Al Jaz item about Proximus tweeting about the last message, but the target Al Jaz item doesn't seem to exist on the internet, and the Proximus twitter account doesn't mention the matter again after the December 12 tweet. This all made me very uncomfortable, but considering our options, I concluded there were really only two possibilities: (1) publish the article saying it happened, based on the evidence available; (2) not-ready the article, probably meaning that weak mainstream coverage prevents us from publishing although in theory we could email Proximus to ask whether it happened as scheduled. I didn't like these options. In the end I weaseled slightly, adding the words "as of" that just slightly alter the nuance of that lede sentence so that "yesterday" becomes part of the action (it was stopped-as-of-yesterday) rather than when the action happened (it was stopped, and when that happened was yesterday). I'd like to find better options for such a situation for future use. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Pi zero: I had trouble finding that tweet. It was not tweeted by Proximus, but Proximus Group. Here is the tweet. link. Took me time to find it. Yes, it was very darned difficult, because when I saw the dates of the sources, I had no idea what to do. It was similar to what would happen for Virgil van Dijk. He is to join Liverpool on January 1. He will become the costliest defender in history. Plus, it is English football, so receives lot of attention. So when the move actually takes place on January 1, I don’t think there would be anything to write, nor will anyone write about it.
•–• 06:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Proximus source was supposed to be there for the statistics mentioned in the article, as well as the graph. What do we do now?
•–• 09:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The graph, which you could not see (was JavaScript on?), is the one we have used in the article. For the "exponential decrease", with the available statistics, and the curve fitting for the plotted graph, it appears to be a Exponential decay graph.
•–• 10:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The file has to be uploaded locally because it can be changed on Commons by anyone, and we would not want that to happen.
•–• 10:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Realizing that the tweet was by Proximus Group contributed to my eventual decision to change the wikilink from {{w|Proximus}} to {{w|Proximus Group|Proximus}}. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)