Talk:Football legend Johan Cruyff dies at 68 due to cancer
Add topicReview of revision 4202146 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4202146 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
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 4202146 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
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. |
{{editprotected}} Please add this category in article. Thanks. --Brateevsky (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Griezmann's connection to the article is very week. Should we keep it?
•–• 19:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)- @Acagastya: The article reports something they actually did, that is part of a news event reported on by the article. I've considered that solid justification for categorization. --Pi zero (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: so I thought about this analogy. If a X person dies, and Y comments something about X, we might not add Y’s category, however, if Z performs, let’s say X’s song as a tribute, we would add Z’s category. The thing which bothers me is Griezmann didn’t do anything for Cryuff’s death by scoring a goal. Maybe if he dedicated his goal to him, it would have some weight. (Which also reminds we, we have a category for Karl Heinz Rumminage (I don’t know the spelling), Bayern Munich AG’s CEO, and we add articles about transfer news whenever he comments. But that quote still has something to do with the event. In this case, it feels very feeble. But well, I wanted to know why or why not, rather than just removing the category. It has been a problem always.
•–• 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)- If X dies, and Y comments something about X, I would add Y's category. When we report that Y said something as part of the news events we reported, I maintain that should be categorized; it is something I would want to be able to find if I were researching Y in our archives. --Pi zero (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- that is what I said. If it were a transfer article instead of obituary, we have been doing it. However, what if Y commented about something else which happened during the cremation ceremony of X?
•–• 04:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)- Well, that isn't what you said, but maybe it just got tangled up in the saying, and in any case it's clearly not the main point. I understand your concern, I think, and I did pause to consider, when first addressing your question, whether relevance holds here. If an article mentions that, oh btw, something happened a week earlier, the events of a week earlier would not automatically get categorized (I'm not sure whether there are exceptions; common sense would have to apply). But this is something peripherally related that we choose to report as news. --Pi zero (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- that is what I said. If it were a transfer article instead of obituary, we have been doing it. However, what if Y commented about something else which happened during the cremation ceremony of X?
- If X dies, and Y comments something about X, I would add Y's category. When we report that Y said something as part of the news events we reported, I maintain that should be categorized; it is something I would want to be able to find if I were researching Y in our archives. --Pi zero (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: so I thought about this analogy. If a X person dies, and Y comments something about X, we might not add Y’s category, however, if Z performs, let’s say X’s song as a tribute, we would add Z’s category. The thing which bothers me is Griezmann didn’t do anything for Cryuff’s death by scoring a goal. Maybe if he dedicated his goal to him, it would have some weight. (Which also reminds we, we have a category for Karl Heinz Rumminage (I don’t know the spelling), Bayern Munich AG’s CEO, and we add articles about transfer news whenever he comments. But that quote still has something to do with the event. In this case, it feels very feeble. But well, I wanted to know why or why not, rather than just removing the category. It has been a problem always.
- @Acagastya: The article reports something they actually did, that is part of a news event reported on by the article. I've considered that solid justification for categorization. --Pi zero (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Griezmann's connection to the article is very week. Should we keep it?
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I remember you said not to include USGS to all the articles about events (even when it were reported by them). Then how do you explain adding Karl Heinz Rumminage’s category?
223.237.238.35 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well... USGS is not a person. Different kinds of topic categories may have different practical considerations associated with them. --Pi zero (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
{{add category}}
Please add Category:Amsterdam.
•–• 11:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Done --Pi zero (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)