Talk:Chile president Michelle Bachelet signs bill to legalise same-sex marriage

Active discussions

Page moveEdit

@Pi zero: mind the page move. I almost lost the entire article. Best to leave a talk page message, or ping the author.
acagastya PING ME! 18:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[]

@Acagastya: Conversely, you could use {{editing}} to mark an article in-development that you don't want anyone else to edit. While I do have sympathy for your plight, I don't feel I did anything unreasonable. This was, after all, a typo that would have been reasonable for anyone to come along and fix. I was careful about it; I checked the edit history for evidence that it was actively undergoing edits, but there hadn't been any for an hour and a half, and under the circumstances I would never have moved it without leaving a redirect because I know, from painful past experience, that moving an in-development article without a redirect can cause them to not notice the move: they could be editing the previous version at the time of the move, then they save their edit and it doesn't cause an edit conflict because of the lack of a redirect, and they're entirely unaware that there are at that point two articles in need of a history merge by an admin. --Pi zero (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[]
@Pi zero: I might have told you that I write some lines, see the preview, edit, add, and preview. History is not the best way to know if someone is actually working on it or not -- I do like etherpads for this reason, but there are so many other problems which we need to address for etherpads. I didn't know someone would edit that article -- I can expect EC for something which was covered heavily in MSM. And it was 12 when I was almost done, and losing everything would be horrifying.
acagastya PING ME! 12:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[]
I understand the awkwardness of the situation you were in. There are only two ways, generally, for someone considering editing something like this to judge likelihood of activity: by the edit history, which I did consult, and by whether or not someone has put an {{editing}} template at the top of the article to warn others that they're in the process of making a particularly high-stakes edit. I can try to be cautious, for my part, which mostly means not fixing things when I see something wrong (I could simply leave a note on the talk page, but that's both putting additional burden on everyone to make sure it's taken care of later, and introducing some finite chance that it will somehow not get done), but I strongly recommend that if you're making an edit with such high stakes you should take precautions, one of which is, of course, to put {{editing}} at the top of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[]
Will take care next time; but you could have pinged me on IRC. You can see I posted it around 12:15, though I was supposed to be sleeping at 10. Have you thought of having on wiki real time chat?That would make things so simple!
acagastya PING ME! 16:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[]

Image creditEdit

I've spent more time and effort mucking with the image credit that I'd hoped to spend on the entire article (and I've basically not even gotten to the article yet; it might well go stale and be lost because of this). Of course, all of this is based on the premise that linking to Commons does not delegate to Commons the task of providing meta-information for legal purposes, contrary to what I've found in the past when I've gone out of my way to consult with Wikinewsies with more experience in this area.

In this case I had three choices.

  1. Leave all that externally linked meta-information clutter on the page. Besides the undesirability of both the external links and the clutter, I concluded this was not a viable option anyway since I was unable to verify the claim about what license the flickr image was under.
  2. Use the form of externally-linking image credit I was eventually able to find on some old articles (from before I was involved in such things at all).
  3. Just walk away from the article and let it go stale, which was tempting.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]

what bothers you so much about the credit? (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]
And by the way, CC license has no clause that a link to Commons is enough for metadata. It has to have a link to the original article, and the license. What is the problem? Besides, we aren't giving a direct link to Commons. Don't say one can click the image as CC license say the it has to be mentioned explicitly. (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]
might well go stale and be lost because of this
I assume "this" means Pi zero is paranoid about following the suggested attribution method. Why don't you give similar relaxation for Wikinews' "copy us"? (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]
That last remark strikes me as pure trolling. --Pi zero (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]
every single time you do not follow CC license requirements. So why do you think someone would respect it when they wanted to copy our content? Tell me, what is the problem in agreeing to the requirements? (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]
There is a disagreement here about what is required. That should not be misrepresented as a disagreement over the importance of the requirements. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[]

@Pi zero: See this.

Example of ideal attribution: "This is an ideal attribution "Creative Commons 10th Birthday Celebration San Francisco" by tvol is licensed under CC BY 2.0"

Example of good attribution: "Photo by tvol / CC BY"

Example of incorrect attribution (English Wikinews like approach): "Photo: Creative Commons".

If you disagree with me, okay. But what is the reason of disagreement? Can you justify? Do you think your method, or the one we see regularly on English Wikinews is correct comparing it with the link provided above? That CC licensed media needs attribution. (Click on the reuse terms icon on it's flickr page) And the attribution must have author name, place where it can be found, title, and license link. It has to me said explicitly, not users going and finding out themselves. The way you are going is ill-practice in free culture.
acagastya PING ME! 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[]

Review of revision 4342617 [Passed]Edit

this article isn't entirely accurateEdit

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong (I'm new). She proposed a bill that must yet go to congress. She signed that submission. However, it will take a year or more before Congress finally approves the bill into law (if they do at all). Piñera has a strong chance of being President by then, and thus it may not be a strong legislative priority for the congress (though this is reasoned conjecture on my part). Source: my wife is a Chilean lawyer and we were reading the news together from Chilean sources in Spanish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pagesiderageside (talkcontribs) 02:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[]

@Pagesiderageside: In what way is the article inaccurate, then? --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[]
On Monday, Chilean president Michelle Bachelet signed a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. The bill awaits approval from the two houses of congress to pass, which would also permit LGBT couples to adopt children…Bachelet's term is to end in March. Former president and candidate in November's Chilean presidential election Sebastián Piñera is against the legalisation of same-sex marriage
long story short; whatever you said is there in the article. If you have issues with headline, it says she signed, it doesn't say it is mow legal. (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[]

@Pi zero:Yes I think that is more accurate. It is just a bit misleading (the Title) to a US audience at least as when you say "signs a bill" it sounds like it is the final step in passage as law. This is more like proposing a bill. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --Pagesiderageside

@Pagesiderageside: Yes, it might have been better to tweak the headline a bit. The point could stand to be made a bit plainer for those accustomed to signing a bill being the last step rather than the first. Not actually something to fix, I think (since we're past the 24-hours-past-publication horizon), but definitely to learn from. --Pi zero (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[]
I really don't think it is misleading. It says signs a bill. If it were to be legalised, I would have said "Same-sex marriage now legal in Chile". For example, US Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage legal.
acagastya PING ME! 06:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[]


Please the iwl link for the Russian article: [[ru:Президент Чили Мишель Бачелет подписала законопроект о легализации однополых браков]] (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[]

Return to "Chile president Michelle Bachelet signs bill to legalise same-sex marriage" page.