Talk:Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open

Review of revision 4373650 [Passed]

Revision 4373650 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4373650 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

@SVTCobra: The article has to be published if it passes the review. I don't see the {{Publish}} tag. Is the article published or not?
•–• 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you messed it up by changing things. Now I have to look it over again. --SVTCobra 14:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not. Evidently, you did not use {{under review}} template. Moreover, the "mess" you are referring to is fixing things per the style guide. And it is quite surprising that there is no comments page created if you actually published this article using EzPr.
•–• 14:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Something very strange does seem to have happened here. SVTCobra, when you submitted this review did the gadget report that the page had been modified, or did it just sort of not do part of what it was meant to? --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The gadget seemed to update the talk page first, then when it tried to update the article, I got an edit-conflict. --SVTCobra 15:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

---

It would be nice if the article is not overly linked, even if I plan to write about Aus Open, saying "the upcoming 2018 Australian Open" is a) encyclopedic, and b) "2018" is redundant, because who would even say about what is to happen after one whole season -- if it is not retirement.
•–• 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If the article is not published yet, let's move the page back to "...Aus Open".
•–• 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No! It remains my contention that nobody calls it the Aus Open. I don't care if that is in the url of the official website. I have heard "Aussie Open" but never "Aus Open".

Maybe you should start reading Wikinews. Or, Deccan Herald, SBS News, FOX Sport, News.com.au -- some reliable news orgs which uses "Aus Open".
•–• 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I still say it is a non-standard use (and I note that SBS used "Aust"). Certainly, in spoken English, only "Australian Open" or "Aussie Open" are used. Why are you insistent that it is better with "Aus Open"? --SVTCobra 15:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Another one. "Aus Open" and "Oz Open" are two other forms which are acceptable. "Aus Open" is how I prefer to use for the articles I write under this nick -- that is not the point. The problem is: why this style is a problem? Do not tell me that people haven't heard about AusOpen because we have used Twitter accounts for the source (rather than individual tweets) and it is pretty clear that people recognise Aus Open as the first grand slam of the tennis season. It really is frustrating that my choices are always questioned -- live Ganga vs the Ganges. Aus Open vs Australian Open. Refer to Wiktionary for Oz or Aus if you are not sure.
•–• 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There is lots of informal language. You haven't explained why it is better to use an informal name and not the formal name. The title is not too long. I note that the category you created is not called "Aus Open" or "Oz Open" but rather "Australian Open". --SVTCobra 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming

Putting this word for the 2018 Australian Open lets the reader know immediately that is not an event that is happening now. The difference with the Brisbane event, is it is not upcoming because it is currently underway. --SVTCobra 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Two tennis events monitored by ATP would not coincide. Brisbane event started today, which rules out the possibility of Aus Open currently underway.
•–• 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to assume the reader knows that. --SVTCobra 15:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4373673 [Passed]

Revision 4373673 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: At long last 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 4373673 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: At long last 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.

Links

I think it is useful to have links to the current year tournaments. Readers can quickly reach our sister project to see the draws and other information about this year's tournament. Far better than linking to the overall tournament. I linked to both because of a suggestion that the tournaments might get local links in the near future. So, I future proofed it. I disagree with the sentiment that it is "needless words". --SVTCobra 15:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Calling it "2018" is redundant. And the "future-proofing" is encyclopedic.
•–• 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I sighted the edit (mostly because there were other edits piling up behind it that couldn't be sighted out of order, a very familiar awkwardness of the wiki software), I do think "encyclopedic" is a bit strong. It seems to me either approach to that paragraph is acceptable news writing, and including more information rather than less, within reason, is somewhat advantageous. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But "2018" is still obscure, and should try to omit needless words.
•–• 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the year of the tournament is "obscure" but I have left it out since you are adamant about it. --SVTCobra 23:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 is the current year. This year’s tennis season has just started. There are four grand slams and various ATP events scheduled for the year. Do you think anyone would be able to predict what body part would be injured after (at least) a year.
117.198.188.35 (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, you are not logged in. And I don't get the connection between saying it is the 2018 tournament and "predicting" what body part is injured. What??? --SVTCobra 06:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I know I am not logged in. I do not login when messages are more important that who is saying, I don’t have a stable high speed connection like others, FWIW, how do you think organisers can announce a player is to miss a tournament due to hip injury which is to take place after one year? It is not even a question that they are not talking about 2018s event.
117.198.188.35 (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not get your mentality of "we don't need this word" or "mentioning the year is obscure" or "Aus is better than Australian". Does Wikinews have a new policy of conveying information in the most abbreviated format possible? Does Wikinews have a character limit like Twitter? I don't get it. Why are you arguing every little change I made ad nauseam? Did I do or say something to trigger you? --SVTCobra 07:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
everyone has their style of writing articles. We don’t have a character limit, but shorter is better for a headline. Until and unless there is something terribly wrong with the style I prefer, and this is not about ‘2018 being obscure’, I expect you to stick to the style guide, respect the author’s choice and keep this “trauma trigger” for someone else.
117.198.188.35 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do cite the part of the Style guide (part of which I wrote) which was violated by my edits. Yes, it says headlines should be kept short. We could make it far shorter: "AusOp: Murray out". Is that better? I think not. And keep in mind, even the Style guide is not policy, merely a guideline. IMHO, you are overly protective of your exact wording of things. And, yes, I think you are triggered. --SVTCobra 08:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"AusOp: Murray Out" tell me what is it about? Which Murray are you talking about? You know, your comments are just highlighting the fact that Wikinews is for the developed first world nations. This is nothing new. And you aren't the first one, SVTCobra. Looks like you are on the project after a long pause, and you don't remember all of the things, for example, self-sighting addition of the image, or, page protection before a vandal takes advantage. Looks to me as if you are the one who is triggered by someone opposing to what you think is correct.
•–• 09:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Image

Now you are saying I can't auto-confirm a revision that is a simple addition of a file photo? And then you revert it while not logged in? Please explain yourself. --SVTCobra 08:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Project policy. I don't need to explain everything to you, you are aware of these things.
•–• 09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Cite the policy! But congratulations, I am not going revert and start an edit war. You just made the article worse. Cheers; hope you are happy. --SVTCobra 10:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t prefer adding file photos that are not related. I don’t have a problem with it, and I would not call it “worse”, and am I happy? Well, you should never assume.
•–• 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to point out the irony of you auto-sighting the removal of the photo? And how is a photo of Andy Murray (local link) not related to the article? --SVTCobra 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)--SVTCobra 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Irony? I did not sight it, but you reverted my edits. Since the article was published without it, it is totally okay for me to sight the removal of the image. It is equivalent to unaccepting the revision you had sighted. For the part where I do not use archived photos, it is my personal choice for the article, so I would not call it worse. Not all articles need to have images, this one would not have a non-archived photo since there was no conference for this announcement, but for the sake of visual media, which pizero prefers, I have been okay with or without it. But then, it is my personal choice. Preventing a policy breach, or better say trying to restore the revision when the policy was breached, I think now you are the one arguing for the sake of arguing.
•–• 10:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, right. And all articles that you write must respect your personal preferences and choices. Wikinews is not a collaborative effort. I should have just given a mindless review for your article and not tried to improve it in any way. Your personal preferences are paramount and come above all else, even if you must twist policy to force other people to comply. You are the perfect person for Wikinews. Please forgive me. --SVTCobra 10:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
hypocrisy at its best. Great! So the Avengers can assemble when I speak about having English (UK) as the language for Wikinews articles, and they tell me to respect one’s choice of language and punctuation mark. But when I use English (UK) or English (IN), spell “Ganga” instead of “Ganges” which is a proper noun, use “Ramzaan” instead of “Ramadan”, use the word “thrice”, say “Aus”, not add the punctuation marks if they were not in the source, you come up and tell me this. Nice job, admin.
•–• 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do we need to take this to Wikinews:Dispute resolution? Or maybe you want to take it all the way to Wikinews:Arbitration Committee? I am sorry, but I feel you are being completely irrational. --SVTCobra 11:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, all we need to do is to end this hypocrisy. And also avoid saying someone “lolcow”, because that is not at all constructive for the project. I used to think editors were promoted to help others by taking certain precautions, listen to, and do do what editors are asking for, looking at the bigger picture. It is none of my concern what happened with you in your real life (ironically, everyone is fine with pulling my leg, when I fell of a moving train or met with an accident), but if real life and on-wiki work can’t go on together, maybe you should leave the rights. To show, there are tens of admins and reviewers, but when someone is actually looking for their help, turns out that there are less than 10% of them actually willing to look into. What would you know about asking admins on Twitter or waiting until someone is available to protect the page just when I finish review or to stop a vandal.
•–• 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: You realize, I trust, that I greatly appreciate both your writing and your reviewing on the project. From time to time your treatment of your colleagues, other Wikinewsies who like you have inside understanding of the underlying Wikinews principles like neutrality etc., becomes abrasive. --Pi zero (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

that is nice way of putting it. What about who started it, when I removed a photo, or raised a problem on talk.
223.180.0.155 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

By the time parties to a disagreement start asking who started it, likely the disagreement just needs to stop. Fwiw, both of the actions you mention, one could imagine doing differently. My own approach to these sorts of situations puts a lot of emphasis on "how can I help defuse this situation, and avoid making it worse". Wikipedia, of course, has detailed rules for how to handle disagreements about an edit to an article — and they can be very unfriendly toward anyone who doesn't walk into such a situation already an expert on precisely following the rules they invented, so that approach has problems too. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)