Talk:Bush nominates Harriet Ellan Miers for U.S. Supreme Court

Oh sheesh. {{WP:NFN}}

We need some subdivision of the developing stories, peoplewill be clicking this thinking it has already happened.

Please sign your comments (using --~~~~). This "story" is properly tagged with the {{prepare}} tag and appears in a seperate area of the workspace. I would not be opposed to moving the listing of prepared stories to a seperate page under the Wikinews namespace -- there is already Wikinews:Story preparation page, but those stories appear to be of a more distant nature. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking of having two boxes, one for stuff which could theoretically be published now, and another for other things like evergreen. - Nyarlathotep 14:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly, this prepared story thing worked just as intended for this article. Outline, background, etc. develops into a full story pretty quickly. Wikinews rocks. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. President Bush...

Who in their right mind the world over, being at least nominally or minimally aware, does NOT know that "Bush" is the President of the United States of America? Thus, it is unnecessary to write "U.S. President Bush" on ANY headlines.

Surely Iraqis, Israelis, Chinese, English, Irish, Sudanese, Chilean, Afghani, Australian, Vietnamese, Canadian, Mexican, Grecian, Italian, Namibian, Georgian, Russian, French, German, Swiss, Saudis, Bosnians, Cubans, Costa Ricans, Czechans, Egyptians, El Salvadorans, Spanish, Indians, Pakistanis, Guatemalans, Haitians, Indonesians, Icelanders, Kuwaitis, Japanese, Jordanians, Peruvian, Koreans, Nepalese, Serbians, Montenegrans, Slovakians, Slovenians, Swedes, Thais, Turks and others know who "Bush" is!

Therefore, writing "U.S. President Bush" is unecessary. "Bush" will suffice.

Roberts?

@SVTCobra: Are these Miers articles (I think there might be two of them) really worth putting in the Roberts category? Not a rhetorical question. When I did my scan for Roberts articles, I figured not, on the grounds Roberts is only being peripherally mentioned; he doesn't participate in the news here. Mentioning that some news event happened previously seems just background, like mentioning that something happened in a city on the Atlantic coast doesn't warrant putting the article in Category:Atlantic Ocean.

As an aid to, for wherever it leads: The principle I hope to follow (suggested by a long-ago proposal) is that since the purpose of a category is to aid someone researching our archives, the question to ask when deciding whether to categorize an article is, if you were researching the topic of that category in our archives, would you want that article to be one of those provided to you on the search? I'm kind of thinking not, here. But. Your thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen the other Miers article, but in this one he is mentioned prominently in the second paragraph. Rehnquist's death and Robert's changed nomination made the Miers nomination possible. He seems pretty pivotal here. --SVTCobra 05:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see Roberts at all in Harriet Miers withdraws from Supreme Court nomination. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What about the inline links to external. They bother me, but I guess we should preserve the archive. --SVTCobra 05:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Re external links, I've been known occasionally to fix some of those in the archive, shifting them down to an External links section; but even just things in the archive that are completely uncontroversial add up to a vast pile of work, which one has to be willing to repeatedly leave-for-later when one goes to the archive to do something else.

Although this mentioned Roberts in the second paragraph, it's still only a passive mention: he doesn't do anything in the news described by this article. --Pi zero (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Btw, once or twice I've even received criticism for some of these sorts of formatting fixes in the archives, on the grounds that it's kind of nice to be able to look in the early archives and say "look how much we've improved". --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

For my part, I would add this to a category for Sandra Day O'Connor if we had one, because this is part of the search for her replacement, which I would think would be of interest to someone researching O'Connor in the archive. --Pi zero (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hm... okay, now that we actually do have a category for Sandra Day O'Connor, I find myself agreeing that Roberts is involved here, in that his nomination is causally involved in the news activity of this article. --Pi zero (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if it is for research, this is probably useful on how Roberts went from nominated for associate to chief justice (although I haven't reviewed all the articles on him). I did get your point, though, which is why I reverted Thomas from the categories. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)