Talk:'Bridezilla' YouTube video: many debate legitimacy

The editors of this article need to remember and apply Wikinews:Etiquette and especially never assume.
Please calm down, chill out, have a nice warm cup of tea and become nice. Thank you.

Comments

I, FellowWikiNews, the creator of this article is apologizing for giving Wikinews bad publicity. I read it in the news paper and thought that it was an interesting story to report on. But, I forgot that Wikinews is not like the mainstream media. Now everyone is complaining on the talk page and I feel really bad about it. Please delete this article before someone else sees it. Thank you all. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You weren't the only person who made a mistake, many, including myself, failed to fix the mistake when we could have, see: #Where_we_all_went_wrong. Bill3 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hi...i am new to this discussion but i think that Bill3 was the one who really screwed up.

Not news

I just watched a significant portion of this video, it ain't news. It's domestic drama --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with you, Brian. --Thunderhead - (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This story was reported by two major news sources in Canada. How could this be not news?? Bambi II Only on Disney DVD is not news, not this. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time i come on wikinews; im usually on wikipedia. It's pretty sad to see this as a news story and on the front page. (70.120.219.68 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Was this really, FWN? Hmm, I suppose if it's reported by the mainstream media it has some importance, due to popularity. I mean, America's reported some pretty strange stuff too... --Thunderhead - (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm going to have to say I don't think it's news. If it's even remotely news worthy, it certainly isn't newsworthy enough to be on the main page. Poorly filmed & possibly fake youtube drama is not front page news... 67.180.28.194 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the popularity mentioned, I like it, as long as it doesn't end up on one of the lead spots. Not everything should be serious Towsonu2003 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may have been mentioned by a couple major news sources, but that doesn't mean much. Instead of copying them on something so trivial, why not have a report on something significant like the AUs promise of a surge in peacekeepers in Somalia? Or better yet, report on something that the media isn't covering much. At least for the main page the articles should be something more than human interest, and not particularly interesting at that,.

"How could this be not news??" Wikinews doesn't have to follow the same standards for news as everyone else, we can actually have higher standars. Wikinews should not rely on yellow press tactics. In my opinion, discussion about a YouTube video is nothing to fuss about. I might add that I smell the slight stench of using Wikinews for promotion in the air... Naphra 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I smell a slight problem with how to relegate a story like this when competition for space on the MainPage becomes more intense. -Edbrown05 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not there yet, and when we get to the point where we have to choose articles to list on mainpage, i guess we'll do something like the process for Featured article on WP(albeit a much faster one).

regarding this article, i don't see a great deal to worry ourselves about, . this is news if the 2 million (or whatever) views is a big number. if not, this is not particularly notable, but i don't have a big problem with it being reported on. for one thing, going by number of comments, this has attracted more interest than say, this. a part of news is to report on what interests people.

i don't think it's much of an advertisement either - it is written using independent sources, written by an editor of good standing who doesn't appear to be connected with the video (izzatso? :).

if people don't want to read about this, they're free not to. if people want to read article about more important things, they're free to contribute such articles. when those articles turn up in large numbers, we'll see how we can give them more priority than the latest youtube video. until then, i would like us all to... ummm, Write, and let write. — Doldrums(talk) 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here?

I thought that the mission of Wikinews, much like that of the Wikipedia, was to improve the quality of news beyond that of conventional media. This type of story does not belong on Wikinews, let alone the front page.

All articles on Wikinews go on the front page. There are currently some talks of using Category:Local only but, (IMHO) it's a bad idea that wont work for Wikinews. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one remove this crap?

What tag has to be added to get this off the news page? Bill3 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote

---

Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively, from WN:E

• Please note that calling this article crap is a violation of WN:E. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Public apology

I, FellowWikiNews, the creator of this article is apologizing for giving Wikinews bad publicity. I read it in the news paper and thought that it was an interesting story to report on. But, I forgot that Wikinews is not like the mainstream media. Now everyone is complaining on the talk page and I feel really bad about it. Please delete this article before someone else sees it. Thank you all. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

Not that it's binding or anything, but vote below:

Delete

• Yup--Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• It ain't that bad, FWN! Think of how many articles I've had deleted. I do have to vote Delete though. --Thunderhead - (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not sufficiently newsworthy. Delete. Naphra 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep

• Strong keep. Using the [[Category:Local only]] tag moves the story to the Region and Topic categories listed at the bottom of the article. (The 'Local only' tag has some problems because it was developed long before things like the 'Latest news' sections on Category and Portal pages. For more on that, see [1] and[2]) -Edbrown05 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see talk:DragonFire1024 here and talk:Bawolff here. -Edbrown05 06:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep wikinews dosnt always need to report on war, etc. i found this article quite interesting.

Bridezilla video a fake

The person who faked this is a student at Ryerson University in Toronto. [3] [4] —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where we all went wrong

Ok, I've gotten rid of the article by adding a {{notnews}} tag. The author express regret, so that's old news too. The important thing IMO is that all of us who complained about this article are the ones that screwed up because we talked about it instead of removing it. Probably the worst idea was the straw poll. A straw poll takes too long. Stories are only displayed for 3 days, and probably only read in the first day that they are online. After 1 day, the damage is done and removing the article won't undo it. After half a day, half the damage is already done, etc.

So next time, when we see a (truly) rubbish article, add the {{notnews}}, and the other tags available can be seen here: Wikinews:Article_development. Bill3 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use WN:E when commenting. Using "when we see a (truly) rubbish article" is violating civility policies. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any particular article when I wrote "(truly) rubbish", I was talking about in future, and I added "truly" because we should set the bar pretty high for non-discussed removal. BTW, you're sig is pretty obnoxious. It was hard to find the right place to write my reply because the html of your sig takes up more space than this conversation does! Something to think about when discussing etiquette. Bill3 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bill3, you did not remove the article. You only added the {{notnews}} tag on it. BTW, the title of this comment should be: Where I went wrong. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I messed up, and I came back a day later and found that a bunch of people had done the exact same thing. I, and they, messed up. I got the article off the front page. If wikinews is too complicated that someone with helpful motives can't easily help, it needs rethinking. BTW, when doing the searching required to find out about notnews, I ended up in out of date documentation. The docs tell me I should use the tag "developing", but when I add that tag, I get a warning. Bill3 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because you are not active on Wikinews. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, the docs not being updated in a while is not a good thing. I should add that to my list of things to do (eventually). However I fail to understand who what when where why and specificly how you got a warning about developing tag. It is currently an optional tag, but it's use is still fully allowed. (However it should not be used with the publish tag at the same time. I would be surprised if the instructions didn't state that). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pretty obvious that you can't use the develop template with the publish template, lol. Also, I think the article is fine now after I fixed it. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Outlets covering

• Tonight Show (wanted to cover, but girls deny show since only two allowed on)
• Good Morning America
• Today Show
• CityNews
• Toronto Star
• CTV
• CBC
• National Post
• Global National

Mabie we should do a whole re-write of this article and add in the new info? —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is news

As per this and this edit this article is news. Please do not re-add the notnews tag as there are plenty of sources. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

needs attention

i still haven't seen a good reason why this shld not be covered on Wikinews. it is fairly obvious to me that this is News. it is also sourced, that too from independent and mainstream news sources. it is written neutrally. further, Wikinews shld not be playing tag wars days after an article is published - especially when the tags are not merited based on our policies and guidelines. retracting an article (or even worse, "disappearing" a published article by deleting) it is a very big deal and shld not be undertaken simply because some people don't particularly care for what is reported. i would urge people to revert this article back to its published state and report the new developments in a new article. currently, this article is dated Jan 31, and reports what happened on Feb. 2.  — Doldrums(talk) 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we bump the date? —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 05:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't like the idea of bumping dates a couple of days after publication - the basic idea is that if wikinews articles are to serve as a historical record, they shld be preserved as they were on publication. from a cursory look at the article, i think the update is big enough for a new article (or atleast a mention on Shorts). i 'd prefer that alternative.  — Doldrums(talk) 05:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That sounds fine to me :) —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's always the dreaded correction template. --Thunderhead - (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

.gif image to .svg

{{editprotected}}
Proposal: Change link - [[File:Youtube.gif]] to [[File:YouTube logo.svg|123px]]

Reason: .SVG file can be scaled and is of better quality than its .GIF counterpart. Cflm001 (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why this should have been fine to be on wikinews

Anything and everything that hits the airwaves in any form should be captured on wikinews for this reason. WikiANYthing is supposed to carry with it a trust that the info contained within is factual. So, even if Bridezilla makes it to the news, or some pop star gets arrested, it should be here if someone wants to write it, as there will be countless people who will keep it fact-checked and edit it appropriately, and that is the service wikinews offers:

To have the SOLE place to go to find the FACTUAL and ONLY factual data on any an every piece of news that hits the airwaves.

One might be surprised how knowing the true facts about the latest celebrity drunken foray might assist in a more worthwhile endeavor. Without wikinews, some things would go one and on believed to be factual only because it slipped under the radar.. wikinews should be the site that catches everything.