Talk:Wikinews Shorts: September 4, 2010/Abbas, Netanyahu to meet regularly

De facto style guide violations
This should never have appeared as a standalone item on the main page. (I do think I see the chain of actions that led to it happening, and there's clearly no particular person to blame; even I sinned by omission, in not paying enough heed earlier to links in the chain that were in plain sight.) Underlength alone would disqualify it from appearing on its own on the main page &mdash; but, given that it did get put on the main page with its length, the fact that it appeared on the main page with no dateline and no sources section is just unprofessional. It makes us look cartoonish.

On sober reflection, I suppose I'll sight the fixes myself if no-one else has done so by the time I finish posting this note; after all, none of it is changing the content of the article, so indeed it might be done to an article at the time it was archived (except that with flaggedrevs, unless something went terribly wrong (as has in fact happened), no article would ever make it that far with such deep SG violations in it). --Pi zero (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming self-revert
This is an explanation of the reasoning behind my reversion of my renaming of the page. (Further discussion on the overall situation described above is in this thread on the proposals water cooler.)

I was not aware, when I renamed it, that the page had originally had a similar, though not identical, name to what I renamed it to, the difference being that there used to be a prefix "Shorts: " on it. Had I known that, I would not have done the renaming because it would have seemed to me too close to being a revert (and therefore I'd be in violation of the three-revert rule). Since I wasn't aware of it at the time, and they're a bit different, I might be inclined to give myself the benefit of the doubt on that, except that, pursuant to remarks on the water cooler thread, I've been sensitized to the fact that the title of the article really should indicate that it's a short &mdash; and if I were to rename it that way, since (after several hours of study) I now am aware of the earlier name of the page, it really would seem to me so revert-like that I would find it entirely unacceptable. The upshot is that the only way I can rename the article so as to mention that it's a short, without violating the 3RR in my own eyes, is to revert my own renaming of it.

I still think that associating the article with September 2 is deceptive, and therefore bad for Wikinews; but I've concluded that leaving my renaming in place would be (for an entirely different reason) even worse, and those are the only two options open to me. --Pi zero (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Protect
makeprotected A DPL query shows this is the only old unarchived article left. Like the others, this was edited by a few sysops over the years, but obviously none checked the protection level or noticed the absence of archive. Heavy Water (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ This item seems to have a troubled history. Perhaps it had something to do with that and the "no publish" tag. --SVTCobra 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)