Talk:Chemical firm LyondellBasell collapses

Revision 750327 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great article, great reporting! 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 750327 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great article, great reporting! 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.

Didn't collapse

The remark on Comments:Chemical firm LyondellBasell collapses seems justified. I think this may be a case for retraction. Until then I have unpublished it. See http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/6202449.html --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we weren't the only ones to misunderstand this. See this press release:

• Non-U.S. Operations Not Affected By Chapter 11 Filing (English version) Jan 8

--InfantGorilla (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't tend to unpublish; what we do have is {{Correction}}, which is used in such cases. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add a correction. We don't unpublish. This is an old article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Could someone who understands the story write up a correction and re-publish it, please? --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I only meant unpublishing as a temporary measure. Thanks for the tips—I republished with a {{Correction}}. Should we

• change the headline?
• put something on today's front page?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would leave the headline IMO; for the same reason we leave the content unchanged. We don't have a procedure for putting up notice of corrections on the Main Page right now, but maybe we should look into one - even 23 Australians arrested in global child porn network didn't get its correction noted on the Main Page! The only one I know of was Hitler doll story found to be hoaxed, where the retraction was newsworthy enough for an article in its own right. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support main page corrections for the most serious retractions (when there is no new news story.) I understand that is the practice for mainstream media. I think this is one of those cases. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikinews:Water cooler/policy concerning this idea. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)