Portal talk:Current events

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Current events    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Current events, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
This page has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Related pages
Important pages
Archiving the Portal
News about Wikipedia
About this Page
Suggest a Headline or Main Page In the News Item
Current Portal talk:Current events archives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Old Talk:Current events archives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 (last archive up to: 1 Jan 2007)
Other old Talk:Current events archived discussions
Vote on tense
Setting the context
Too much analysis
Ongoing events
Original Current events GFDL
See October 2003 (history)
Recent changes
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Nobots[edit]

(See also Portal talk:Current events/Archive 7) The nobots template was added to this page to prevent interwiki-bots from updating it, back when the syntax was different, and the page unprotected (and when we had interwikis and interwiki bots).

Now those things have changed, can we remove the template? All the best: Rich Farmbrough03:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

August 27, 2015[edit]

I ended up accidentally in an edit war. I wanted to maintain the Labor Board headline as it was at the end of the day when it seemed sensible, but another anonymous user has now days later insisted with never any explanation to repeatedly revert it to an older version, and I was not the first to believe it was better phrased this way. I have not done further reverts so as not to actually engage in an edit war, but now the headline is in disrepair. I would like to have settled the conflict one on one with that other user but there has not been any communication from their end. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

After the failure of my last attempt to clean up this headline after another user's compromise I supported also failed, I do not want to continue cluttering up the history messily trying to keep it afloat. So here below is what I believed the best compromise version of the headline to be.
I feel like the record speaks for itself on the alternatives as posted by the other user. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Most changes in place except for Obama admin citation. National Review article originally used the same language but has now changed it http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423261/nlrb-franchise-decision RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Your attempt there was not my preferred version, but I had been happy to let it stand for the sake of a consensus compromise. It does not seem like 68.231.26.111 is interested in compromise as s/he still silently subverted your edit with his/her need to blame the Obama administration. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Until a consensus can be reached here is the final version I will be using in periodic correction--
I'm sorry that this ended up so bizarrely contentious and that I am repeatedly still editing it in an attempt to fix it, though I try to leave these edits infrequent so as to not overly clutter the history for others trying to make sense of what happened. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What I really want at this point is a Request for Comment. I looked into the process, but I don't yet feel familiar with wikicode sufficiently to enact it myself. I already feel bad about the amount of times I've edited, I wasn't prepared or familiar with the administrator noticeboards and the policies and guidelines regarding when to notify them versus reverting on one's own. I've read it all now and so while I probably should have gone straight to the noticeboards early on if I had been doing things right, by now I feel like the best, fairest, collaborative way to resolve the entry would be achieving a consensus through RfC, and then bringing that to administrators regarding its implementation.
One might think, why should I care so much. Well I don't really care greatly about this one story or headline, but it was not the first I've seen to have an overly strong POV inserted into it on days after its posting, and I don't want the encyclopedia's historical archive of news to all be as slanted as could be gotten away with due to there being a lack of resistance to it. And so now I'm going to just hang my hopes on this plea and actually stop my edits of August 27th. So if it just goes unaddressed and the headline is left as 68.231.26.111 wants through inaction I'll have become one of the newcomers who was bitten and bullied like WP:BITE said. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I specifically am being bullied. As I was going through the headlines from throughout August to verify instances of late day changes I referred to earlier, I only actually changed one additional day, August 18th, in addition to August 27th, since 68.231.26.111 had already reverted RaqiwasSushi's attempts at compromise. August 18th I documented the specific reasons I was updating it based on what total consensus had seemed to be present that day and that 68.231.26.111 was still relying on late term unsourced edits to push POV. The Wal-Mart story was obviously notable, and I added citations to show so, the Obama administration attribution is the same kind of misunderstanding present on August 27th. In undoing both my edits at August 27th and 18th, 68.231.26.111 accused me of being a revert vandal, which I find highly offensive because 68.231.26.111 has not made any effort to meaningfully participate in any discussion toward compromise or consensus, where I've made every effort to edit fairly and verbosely throughout my contribution history. Whereas at this Aug 17 edit done on Aug 19 and this and this Aug 11 edits done on Aug 12 and 13 one can see additional evidence of 68.231.26.111's pattern to make edits on later days to push unpopular edits whether they are POV (Japan's nuclear reactor restart is not a disaster or accident), not notable (Emile Hirsch's brief jail time only being reported by celebrity news site deadline), et cetera, and I didn't even bother trying to correct those yet, focusing on the more egregiously improper headlines at August 27th and 18th. So while I've not thought or accused 68.231.26.111 of being anything other than a disruptive editor, which I recognize can be perfectly in good faith, I just want 68.231.26.111 to do the edits that 68.231.26.111 does that are not disruptive. 68.231.26.111 on the other hand is name-calling me a revert vandal, so I'll again leave the revert trenches to others, while I try further to understand and prepare myself to Request for Comment before bringing the whole case to administrators. 50.89.166.63 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Subheadings[edit]

When should subheadings be included. For example, an anon just Pope Francis's visit to the United States to the September 22, 2015, entry. As there is unlikely to ever be another news item on that topic for September 22, should the subheading be there?

The reason I'm asking is that a banned Ann who I track likes to look at the "current event" pages, and frequently adds marginally relevant subheadings. One I remember removing recently was to Columbia-Venezuela relations (so I mistyped the article name). I think the article was on a drug seizure at the border.

Another example is Constitution of Nepal in September 20, 2015. It seems likely there will never be another news item with that subheader.

What are the guidelines for subheadings? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC notification: Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles[edit]

There's an RfC at WT:WikiProject Years about the practice of transcluding this Portal's archives into mainspace articles. Any input would be welcome. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Access to news-related websites[edit]

Monday, there was an alert indicating editors could get access to some additional content websites. Remember it appeared at top of 'Current Events' page, hence "news-related" above. Didn't pursue; haven't noticed it since @ Monday noon. Interested. Thanks. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Current string of violent events at Israel/Palestine.[edit]

The current violent events that are taking place in Israel/Palestine needs its own article. To many killings regarding the dispute of Mount Hermon and clahes around the West Bank. Any volunteers.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Lamar Odom - 10/20/15 current event item removal(?)[edit]

Lamar Odom's is a former NBA basketball player and, final divorce decree pending, ex-husband of Khloé Kardashian, an American TV personality whose family has gained notoriety through promotion of itself and their connection to famous people with stories that covered by gossip media. He was near death in a brothel and is now alive. (background) Interesting, but not internationally newsworthy, in my opinion. Recommend removal.

.RaqiwasSushi (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You want Portal:Current events/2015 October 20 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
ThanksRaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)