Talk:FIFA World Cup 2018 Last 16: France, Uruguay send Argentina, Portugal home
Review of revision 4418078 [Passed] edit
Revision 4418078 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 4418078 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
I would be worried about other things before that, like how can the reviewer forgot something they reviewed just a day before?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- As the author, I remember things I wrote in the past. Could be different for a reviewer. But this was not weeks ago to be forgotten.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)- It's not a matter of forgetting. I'm concerned that, in the long run, the review process should not be so personal, nor reviewer adding sources quite so casual. --Pi zero (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what you said in the review comments for Galapagos article.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)- Which article are you thinking of? (Before I start making statements about my own thinking with inadequate information about my past statements.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm told a remark of interest from the earlier article is this.
That was a common knowledge situation, and some question of whether to treat external materials as "Sources" or "External links". This one was specific knowledge, and listing of Wikinews articles (which, by convention, go under "Related news" regardless of whether they're sources or not). --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm told a remark of interest from the earlier article is this.
- Which article are you thinking of? (Before I start making statements about my own thinking with inadequate information about my past statements.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is not what you said in the review comments for Galapagos article.
- It's not a matter of forgetting. I'm concerned that, in the long run, the review process should not be so personal, nor reviewer adding sources quite so casual. --Pi zero (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
another thing about "common knowledge" and the things that were said off-wiki was to add the related news link because I was not in a position to, and was dealing with several deadlines.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- That is certainly immediately relevant; I'll keep it in mind. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Add category edit
{{add category}}
Category:Edinson Cavani.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- Done. --Pi zero (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Post archive rename edit
{{rename}}
The title really ought to be: FIFA World Cup 2018 Last 16: France, Uruguay send Argentina and Portugal home. Changed word is underlined. I know I have the tools to do this myself, but changing the archive has always been a sensitive operation. --SVTCobra 01:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: While we're discussing this headline, does it seem to you non-parallel to use a comma between the first two countries but an "and" between the last two? That is, should it be "France, Uruguay send Argentina, Portugal home"? (I agree "sends" should be "send", and I agree this feels worth getting some agreement on before renaming an archived article.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, it is awkward enough without that inconsistency, but I was looking to make as tiny a change as possible. You can add a comma and remove an 'and' or vice-versa I would have generally preferred the teams playing each other being paired as in something like this: FIFA World Cup 2018 Last 16: France top Argentina, Uruguay beat Portugal (I am treating them as plural because I think that is correct for teams and bands, even though my gut so badly wants to use singular). --SVTCobra 01:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Done. --Pi zero (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's stylistically credible, I think, to treat teams as either singular or plural, provided one is consistent. I like plural, myself. --Pi zero (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, it is awkward enough without that inconsistency, but I was looking to make as tiny a change as possible. You can add a comma and remove an 'and' or vice-versa I would have generally preferred the teams playing each other being paired as in something like this: FIFA World Cup 2018 Last 16: France top Argentina, Uruguay beat Portugal (I am treating them as plural because I think that is correct for teams and bands, even though my gut so badly wants to use singular). --SVTCobra 01:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)