Talk:Tom Cruise orders €14,500 takeaway meal

I'm the owner and publisher of takeaway4you.com and have decided to release this article nto the public domain. So feel free to edit it as you see fit. → CGorman (Talk) 20:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Takeaway -> Takeout

In standard english (Midwest United States), we call it 'takeout', 'carryout', etc, I think Merriam Webster agrees: takeaway is an entry limited to the Collegiate and Unabridged versions. Usurper 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I was debateing with myself which to call it. I've american relatives staying in my house and they just did'nt understand me when I said it to them a few days ago... you know we both speak English, but you Americans speak a completely different languague to us Irish and English! → CGorman (Talk) 21:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You can change it if you want. → CGorman (Talk) 21:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing it to 'Tom Cruise orders meal, chefs fly to US for over €14,500', no problem about the English there, yeah? Usurper 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You failed to follow the (extremely clear) instructions on updating double redirects. I am not going to clear up after you - as it clearly states, it is your responsibilty to do this. Therefore, I rv'd the change and move-protected the article. Dan100 (Talk) 23:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this not a British vs US English debate? I reckon the word should stay the way that it was written originally, same as with the spelling of "color" vs "colour". If you ask me, "takeout" is what happens to Brazillians when they wear unseasonally warm clothing on the London underground. - Borofkin 00:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That murder was a huge discraced and very upsetting. It just shows importance of not jumping to conclusions no matter what profession one is in. → CGorman (Talk) 09:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dan, what the hell? I followed protocol and checked for double redirects. Takeaway is -not- American english. I removed the lingual bias in the article title (takeaway isn't a term to a very large demographic of English speakers) and provided an alternative that referred to neither 'takeout' nor 'takeaway' nor any other derivative. Yet you scold for little to no reason, and make wholly unsupported accusations, and then to top it off you abuse your administrator capabilities by locking it from being moved again because you 'say' you corrected my error. Quote:

1. (Protection log); 23:34 . . Dan100 (Talk) (protected "Tom Cruise orders €14,500 takeaway meal": stop people moving without updating redirects)
2. (Move log); 23:32 . . Dan100 (Talk) (Talk:Tom Cruise orders meal, chefs fly to US for over €14,500 moved to Talk:Tom Cruise orders €14,500 takeaway meal over redirect: revert - redirects not updated)
3. (Move log); 23:32 . . Dan100 (Talk) (Tom Cruise orders meal, chefs fly to US for over €14,500 moved to Tom Cruise orders €14,500 takeaway meal over redirect: revert - redirects not updated)

I see no explicit note on what I failed to do, except you say I did not update the redirects: Which redirects? Why didn't you just update those? Usurper 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have un move protected it --Cspurrier 04:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The instructions for updating redirects are written IN BIG LETTERS. They make crystal clear that it is your responsibility to update them. If people do not, I am not going to clear up their mess, I'm just going to revert it. The functioning of the site is more important than appeasing lazy editors. Dan100 (Talk) 08:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Old News

This was reported days ago in the British press (Metro I think - a free newspaper on the London Underground, so not exactly high quality). Very kind of the editor to release it but it seems like a thinly veiled attempt at promotion of his website. It would have been much more useful to Wikinews when it was actually new. I guess cast-offs are OK as human interest fillers but it doesn't look good for Wikinews to lag so far behind the existing news sources.

Grovelling apology: I have just looked at the reporter's user page. He is a major contributor to this project.

Its ok, but at wikinews we are aiming to cover ever story big or small, and not just for news purposes - also to build up an archive of events throughout time - eventually wikinews will be the worlds most consise and objective history book. The cruise story is minor slightly old news - but I assure you it entertained a lot of people over the past few days and is certainly no harm to wikinews. → CGorman (Talk) 16:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's actually been the most popular story over the last few days... Dan100 (Talk) 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

... ahem, Metro is no less 'high quality' than other newspapers that take themselves far more seriously and spout a lot more rubbish. It is very popular with commuters, managing to reach a wide audience and avoid political alignment, even though it is owned by the evil Mail group. Don't knock Metro! ClareWhite 08:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)