Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-12/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

Usernames in headlines.

I think it would be more appropriate if editors weren't directly referred to in headlines. –xenotalk 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...? It's a bit difficult not to refer to editors at all. Or do you mean just the negative items, such as desysoppings (which everyone agrees are normally regrettable)? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. "Date delinking case amended; Cirt-Jayen466 case closed; call for CU/OS applications" would have worked (if not have been as eye catching - trade-off, I suppose). –xenotalk 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The headline wasn't inherently problematic, these types of headlines have been used in the past and few concerns were raised. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:09am • 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than "X desysopped", you could use the generic term "Admin desysopped".. the person is named in the story, it's a double hit to have it in the headline, but that's just my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. Similar thing was done with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/Arbitration report, rather than putting the administrators' name prominently in the headline. –xenotalk 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with Xeno here. It's a news forum, the users were newsmakers this week. At the very least, we can all be thankful that the headlines are rarely blatantly incorrect, distortions, or flamboyant dramamongering, like the headers often are on Tabloids, or worse, the AN/I and Village Pump threads. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming in the headline goes to hundreds of talk pages and remains there. It's potentially way out of balance. I agree with Fozzie. Tony (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm boldly replacing title with "Cirt/Jayen577 closure". I strongly disagree with naming only one editor in a resolution that involves two. Now, would somebody change the front page title? In both editions? I mean, dang.--Lexein (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in changing anything, because the damage is done on the talk-page subs notice on talk pages. Tony (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the headlines mostly transcluded? –xenotalk 13:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, but not entirely. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - I actually read this because "Ohconfucius" was mentioned on my talk page and they've been mass changing access dates despite a lack of agreement that the formatting should change. -- Jeandré, 2011-09-13t20:34z

Arbitary break

Okay, I have to note that personally I preferred the title as it was, but obviously othe rpeople feel differently. Therefore I propose titles of the form "admin desysopped" unless prior consent is obtained to directly name participants. In the meantime, I will write to Cirt with an apology. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put Cirt's name down here then. Desysopping Cirt is COMPLETE BULLSHIT and it's time to clean house at ArbCom in the next election. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-12/Arbitration_report&oldid=1086042058"