Talk:British singer George Michael, 53, dies

Sources used
Thank you, Darkfrog24, for your hard work on the article. Question: which sources did you use while expanding? I used NY Times and Billboard. I plan to eliminate a redundant source, but I could not figure out which. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I used the BBC, People, NPR and CNN. Do you think there's room for a paragraph on the "curse of 2016"?  We lost Bowie, Fischer, Rickman...  One of these three sources mentions it. Darkfrog24 (talk)
 * I eliminated Vogue, CBS News, News.com.au, and Daily Beast. I left Sky News and Global News remaining. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Darkfrog24, feel free to add that paragraph in both articles about Fischer and Michael. Also, if one of sources that I eliminated mentions the curse of 2016, don't hesitant to add that back. --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now got Fisher under review, so please either request edits on its talk page or wait till I've completed review (which hopefully means, published). --Pi zero (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I also eliminated USA Today and Global News for now. You can reinsert either one if you want to use it later then for additional content. --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4273909 [Passed]
ANGwiki, Pi zero, Lotje, Blood Red Sandman, Zanimum, Darkfrog24 and George Ho: I suggest you watch the news George Michael Dies, was created before the news ‎British singer George Michael, 53, dies, that was "passed", unlike the first. How is it? I suggest that you merge 2 news in 1, for understanding that they are part of history. Saskeh (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Behomd the fact that the title for "I Want to Have Sex" was controversial, nothing in George Michael Dies isn't in the published article, so I'm not sure how the merge wouldn't just be a redirect. --  Zanimum (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Renaming of Wikinews articles post-publish can have bad technical consequences not to be casually invited. So history merge is an unacceptable technical procedure. In these situations we leave the articles separate and, once the archiving policy kicks in, turn the unpublished article into a redirect.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Zanimum; there's nothing there that was merged into here, all of it was unsourced; there's nothing worth preserving. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or delete the "George Michael Dies"? --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * After four days without edits, it will become abandoned. After that it will be deleted. Quick and simple, and leaves ample time for anybody who wants to recycle content elsewhere. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Saskeh, Pi zero, Lotje, Blood Red Sandman, Zanimum, Darkfrog24 and George Ho: I do not understand the wikinews staff here. I gave help with French edition, For someone to know in English, complement and complete the news. I have seen everything in reverse: is one user undoing the other or simply doing everything that the news is not published, how has happened to me since when I publish news here, with CC comes with small talk, that you need more sources and even then, all my news has been deleted. It is possible to do fusions of the two news, unlike that preached by another user, there in other wikinews do this, practice happens more in the WN-PT. ANGwiki (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If we were all shipwrecked on a desert island, and you made a lean to, and George either didn't see it or ignored it and made most of a log cabin, I'm pretty sure we'd all flock to help finish that log cabin.


 * ANG, you wrote two paragraphs, the first of which was a really long sentence. You provided no sources, didn't have any templates about the article being either in development or ready to publish. George either didn't see your article in the Newsroom, or chose to ignore it, either way, he started a new article on the same topic. By the time he stepped back, he had five paragraphs, extensive sources, links to previous Wikinews articles about the singer, links to content on other Wikimedia projects, and categories. It's clear why others chose to continue working on his article. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be done about this situation. True, I was not aware of the other article, which came first. However, after some editing, Darkfrog24 did more work than I could or couldn't have done. There's no need to pursue this any further... Unless you want to be credited, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Actually, I was talking to ANGwiki. 01:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Duplicate articles are going to happen once in the while. It's the cost of doing business in a time-sensitive medium.  Just the other day I had to scrap a draft of a Debbie Reynolds obit that I wrote because these other folks had already gotten one ready for review.  Fortunately, I was able to incorporate some of my work.  I'm sorry that we missed your contribution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)