Talk:US actor Gary Coleman dies aged 42

Review of revision 1030741 [Passed]

Revision 1030741 of this article has been reviewed by Thunderhead (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:12, 28 May 2010 (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 1030741 of this article has been reviewed by Thunderhead (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:12, 28 May 2010 (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.

New title

American? I make that, let's see.... two continents and 35 sovereign states. Very specific. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think so. IRC consensus? I hate when US people call themselves American, like if they were the only in the continent. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's sort of what I thought too (and this has seen a mini-revert war and IRC foodfight over it). But I suppose it depends on one's interpretation, whether you use it in the classical definition (demonym for United States as well as the continent) or the strict, literal meaning. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Noting the exclamation mark, "!IRC-consensus". ;) In short, we discussed this, had a class dramah war, and we ended with quite a few rationales for why it should be "American" as opposed to whatever "US-ian" is. Sincerely, Blurpeace 20:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I used to use it in the meaning its used here. Then I grew up and saw it for what it is: elitist bullshit from the US. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

BRAVO! --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with "US", as it's being used as an adjective nowadays. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think so, and it is shorter and specific. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And not offensive to 34 governments and their collective peoples. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Done and move-protected for 24 hours. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Olé! :) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Benny, I was about to do the same thing. This is getting pretty silly. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hooray that man mascot. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay. Finally this editwar ends. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Without making any comment on whether American or US is linguistically, stylistically or philosophically correct, I fail to see an "edit war" and if you are going to change the title, at least change the first line of the text which still reads American. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Tempodivalse corrected the first line but the last para still has American. Yes sofixit but I'm not going to get involved. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't, and yes, there was a move war. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I count about four or five individual, non-self reverts. That seems to constitute at least a small move war. This isn't Wikipedia, which requires massive amounts or reverts, moves, and drama to even consider protecting a page. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I will note that I'm disappointed at Benny for reverting to his preferred version and then protecting, as opposed to simply locking it first (in case of a move war, standard practice is for a sysop to lock the page on the version that currently stands, not make sure to lock his version in place)). Tempodivalse [talk] 21:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Benny, he locked it in the position consensus dictated. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Benny. Why the fucking problem with using American? US is pretty good, and Benny is right. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Tempodivalse, that is not how a sysop is supposed to act faced with a self-proclaimed edit war. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I am aware of that policy. However, there was consensus to move it back, as you, Diego, and Blood Red Sandman were in favor of using "US" in the title. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot possibly consider consensus to have been reached before anyone has the time to even comment. You protected it within minutes of a few editors commenting without even allowing differing opinions to be posted. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I'll be perfectly honest - I had to actually look up the policy to find out. If it had been me, I might have sought consensus specifically to protect after reading the policy - which isn't technically correct but a perfectly reasonable course of action. In the end, though... it was a little silly at worst. Not a 'disappointing' thing imo; would be if he repeated it or something. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC) To respond to the last edit, which conflicted with me: you must move fast to minimise damage when a published article has/is being moved. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BRS regarding time: the very nature of Wikinews dictates that we make decisions as quickly as possible. In hindsight I realize I could have acted differently, but I still maintain that what I did seemed to be the best decision at the time. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not really anything serious and I agree that action needed to be done quickly (or else have our twitter feed clogged). However, the moving of the title to "American" by several other editors would have suggested that there was significant, but unspoken, consensus for that position too. *shrug* Nothing to make a big deal out of, really. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it should not be moved. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You're right; I should have considered so-called "unspoken opinions" as well. I've unprotected the article pending community input on the matter. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, no great harm was done. Looks like this version will remain in place, now that there have been a few days without objections. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it seems. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)