Follow-up to the Mancester Arena bombing

In response to the Manchester Arena bombing at a concert by Arena Grande, there is going to be a concert, featuring Grande and other celebrities, including Take That, Coldplay and Justin Bieber. Is this worthy enough to go in Wikinews? I would think it is. The tickets for this concert sold out in a few minutes, as was broadcast on the BBC Radio Four news tonight (June 1 2017). Vorbee (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vorbee: If you're interested in writing something for Wikinews, I'd recommend looking through WN:PILLARS (it's a compact overview of what we do), then WN:WRITE is a good tutorial on how to write a first article. --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selecting stories as leads (June 2017)

Seems that there have been disagreements on ordering the stories as leads. I thought that 200 deaths is a huge number, but Afghan deaths story is considered the top story. Meanwhile, the Anime expo and the posthumous marriage thing (well, I created it) are considered bigger stories than the death stories, especially in the mobile version. While the "Original report" is great, I am uncertain whether it surpasses the Sri Lanka one. Well, I don't know what readers would like to read first. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I'll switch the Sri Lanka and the marriage story. How's that? Therefore, the Anime expo is still the second lead. --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of deaths is not an issue. Neutrality must be reflected on the main page as well. But ORs are kept higher in the list, and the other reason to keep that article about Sri Lanka in the fifth due to its length. Lead articles are not the order in which the articles were published. And it should not be monotonous.
acagastya 09:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rearranged the leads, and the changes were accepted. --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seriously thought about rejecting that swap. I almost did. There's a different truck-related incident in the news now, though, so I figured making the other article less prominent might reduce confusion. And even so I almost rejected it, on grounds that the publishing reviewer had made a different call. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acagastya, would you like to review the lead selections please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selecting the top story (6 August 2017)

Right now we have the world's record-breaking payment as the top story. I think Prince Philip's final solo appearance should be in the top lead. Pinging Acagastya and Pi zero for their opinions on this. --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple question. Why? When Pi zero decided to keep that article in Lead article 2, why to over rule it? On Wikinews, Lead article 1 has nothing to do with *the most important event* or *the most recently published article*. (***acagastya recalls seeing Bddpaux's interview in fifth place.)
acagastya PING ME! 06:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason: We are showing the most expensive buyout vs. one of the royal members of the British head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, who also reigns commonwealth realms, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and also heads the Commonwealth of Nations, which gives some money to India, a former commonwealth realm. Back to the Prince/Duke, he has done royal public engagements, including overseas trips. A retirement is a change in the royal family, which has ruled the UK for centuries, even when their roles are... extremely limited and very ceremonial. Also, on mobile, you have the expensive buyout as the first to see on top. To me, buying a football player into a French team, expensive it may be, is nothing compared to the spouse of the head of state, Elizabeth II. --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are in a fucking democracy. We are not ruled by England. And the lede rank has nothing to do with how many people are affected by the news. This approach is not at all neutral.
acagastya PING ME! 15:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... There is no "Wikinews is not democracy", is there? Ah, well. Never mind. I'll leave the expensive buyout as the top lead then. --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can not edit wikinews with the mindset you have while editing Wikipedia. Lede number is not a rank -- and it is totally not neutral to be biased towards a story. Reviewers think about which story to be kept at which position. And there is no need to create rules which becomes a new medium for people to abuse the talk pages. If Wikinews is not a democracy -- it is obviously not under the United Kingdom. But if Wikinews is, then why should we favour a story from constitutional monarchy?
acagastya PING ME! 16:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems possible both of you might be overthinking the ordering of leads. One gets the impression you might even be getting upset with each other about it, and it surely isn't worth that. --Pi zero (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well I am not the one who has raised the concerns about lede ordering. But it is important not to create rules which are 1. Not necessary and 2. Open invitation for abusers to misuse it.
acagastya PING ME! 18:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, true enough, we don't want to become a bureaucracy; that's one of the traps en.wp has fallen into. --Pi zero (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facebook posts

The automation seems to be broken again. Well, whatever it may be, I think the active users should have the credentials to the online accounts (which is tricky because some of us do not use Facebook). (Luckily, since the automation is broken, the renaming mess was not posted)
acagastya PING ME! 22:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor main page issue

The part of main page showing current time is missing a colon. Quoting directly from it: Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 1701 Should be 17:01. --Moonythedwarf (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: We omit the colon when writing UTC (cf Wikinews:Style guide#Time). --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit by WMF staff pending a review

One edit by WMF staff was made two days ago and is awaiting review. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@George Ho: None of us could figure out what that edit was supposed to do, so we asked the WMF account who made the edit for an explanation. So far they haven't bothered to explain, nor even to respond. --Pi zero (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi zero:, no they did. Please see User talk:Jon (WMF). They provided the now and future version of the mobile site main page. I see there is an objection. And I believe that really would be an ugly change. They haven't responded how we can continue maintaining the current look. (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So they did; my mistake. --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Articles RSS Link

The Featured Articles RSS Link on the Homepage is not recognised. This one form the Featured Category seems to resolve the issue: By the way, is it normal that Wikinews does not recognise the accounts from other Wikimedia Projects? ----

OK access restored --5CR1PT (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why are most of the stories on this page about Australia, which contains a third of a percent of the world's population? Jim Michael (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say most of the active user base is from or has an interest in Australia at the moment. --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jim Michael: Yeah, it's not an ideal situation, but most of our active users at the moment are Australia-based and make articles about Australia. --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a joke? Or was this a problem that has now been fixed, in which case why is that not mentioned here? Or is it still a huge underlying problem that has been hidden by cosmetically tidying up the front page? There is one NZ and no Australia story in the main headlines today (plus the same NZ and one Australia story in the small 'latest' headlines). In other words no excessive Australian dominance (at least now, and at least on the front page), but just the above comments which are very off-putting to a newcomer here such as me, or anybody else thinking of possibly contributing to Wikinews, as they imply the project is almost dead and thus probably not worth joining - which is OK if that is indeed the case, but not if it isn't. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, having taken a closer look, I now see that 4 of the 16 small 'latest' headlines are about Australia (+one about NZ), and I'm not sure how I managed to miss 3 of them before writing above that there was seemingly no excessive Australian focus. So there does indeed seem to be a real unfixed (and off-putting) problem. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe there's a need for a front page link to a separate Wikinews Australia front page (or Australia + NZ?), and other Country or Regional Wikinews front pages if needed (or for balance), with a maximum of 2 Australia-NZ stories on the front page here? That would mean Australians could still carry on producing Australian news articles that were not completely invisible but also did not dominate the front page. And similarly for other regions - indeed each regional front page would be linked to the main page, and would be filled with the most recent news stories for that region (some of which might then be a bit out of date at times, but no system is perfect). Has something like this already been tried and failed, or has it never been tried? Tlhslobus (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tlhslobus: if you want to write about something else -- please feel free to. We have no reason to hide any story big or small from the main page. A separate page exists for the continents. Anyone is free to write about any news, and just because we are getting more from one region does not mean we have an unfair treatment here. Noone is stoping others from writing, so if you want, do it. This has been discussed before and if one feels there is a region issue, write it. What else do you want? People to not write about Ocenia? Or for enwn to have a bias against particular region and by doing that, severely going against key principles of the wiki?
•–• 04:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I should have looked more closely at the front page, as I see the links to the regional front pages are already there, but Oceania is still over-represented on the main page. I never suggested not writing about Oceania, but merely limiting the number of Oceania stories on the front page. The fact that this ongoing over-representation is not seen as a problem, and concerns about it are instead dismissed as bias against a region, merely confirms my original impression that Wikinews is not only dying but perhaps deserves to die. But regardless of whether it dies or not, I now think I'm probably better off staying well clear of it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To limit stories on the main paeg is to reflect a bias against some stories, merely because more users prefer writing about it. This is a wiki -- anyone is free to write about what they like about. If you see this as a massive problem, you are free to write about what you feel passionate about. And if you don't want to, I don't see why we are engaged in this discussion. People focus on what they like -- that is what a wiki is -- that is what it means to have an option. We are all volunteers, after all. If you want more news about some other region, write it; noone is stopping you. We are not wizards with ample amount of our time to write about everything happening. We are not going to be biased about some region or some category -- if something is good enough to be published, it is good enough to be on the main page. •–• 07:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that approach continues to be heeded (as it appears to be), then Wikinews can be expected to have even fewer readers, and consequently even fewer volunteers (and seemingly deservedly so). Wikimedia Stats currently show that for English Wikinews in the past year readership is down 10.0%, edits are down 23.7%, and new volunteers are down 28.3%. If the dominant attitude here is that articles have some sort of right to appear on the front page regardless of how much damage that does to Wikinews (and to readership and to volunteering), as it currently appears to be given how the front page looks, then it seems unsurprising that Wikinews appears to be dying (and seemingly will also not be greatly missed if it does in fact die), although I expect that regional imbalance is probably only one of many seemingly ignored problems that Wikinews has. Indeed if I were in charge of allocating funds from the Wikimedia Foundation (which I'm not), I would probably think that Wikinews either needs to be seriously reformed or else that the Foundation's limited funds might be more usefully allocated to other more worthwhile projects. However that is no longer a concern of mine as I have said my bit, and I now hope to take no further part in this discussion. So I will leave you with the opportunity to have the last word if you so wish, and I will try to avoid further replying provided your last word, if any, is not unduly provocative (and perhaps even if it is - after all, I suspect my energy might well be more usefully expended trying to bring the problem to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do your part, let the volunteers here do their part.
•–• 07:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stock market data?


I noticed French Wikinews has a section devoted to the stock market, and indeed we already have a (mostly-unused) template for it. I wouldn't suppose we could add this to our main page too? --JJLiu112 (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJLiu112: I think that would be a great idea but we should do it as part of a revamp of the main page. I’ve been looking at the other Wikinews's too and thinking it’s long overdue. I’m going to put forward some ideas at WN:Water cooler/proposals in the next few days but feel free to add this first. [24Cr][talk] 10:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't. Admins only. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two stories about Russian invasion on Ukraine

Right now we have two stories about the same event: one saying full-scale invasion, another saying approaching Kyiv. Is that okay? --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is unusual, but on what level would it not be OK? Actually, it is three articles now. I do wish you would flesh out your queries a bit more. Was it that you thought the two headlines contracted each other? Please elaborate. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not that. I was just asking whether people don't mind (now) three stories on the Russian invasion on the front page. That's all. Oh, by the way, I did make same concerns five years ago on a different story, but the story was different. Furthermore, I boldly switched one of lead stories to an older one just for the time being. George Ho (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would advise against it. Most news sites are running basically (or literally) 24-hour coverage of the Ukraine crisis; it would be ridiculous to weigh one article against another just because a land war in Europe has more updates than some statue's origin. I removed the initial invasion as lead one, because it doesn't utilise template update & timeliness takes precedence. JJLiu112 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@SVTCobra, JJLiu112, Cromium: The main page articles must follow a timeline. Like US President Biden says Russian President Putin must be ousted is an event that occurred on Saturday but is placed at Lead 2 and International Labour Organization elects first African leader as director general is an event that occurred on Friday and it is placed in Lead 1. Shouldn't they be arranged according to their time of occurrence? 2006nishan178713t@lk 18:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No policy says we must follow a timeline, and there are other news websites that have thematic displays. Also, please use the flag template instead of tagging, particularly as I'm not an admin. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with JJ, there's no policy on this. To me it makes sense to have the most recently published article first. This way we have the front page look different, which is important as we can sometimes look inactive to casual readers due to lack of content. Personally, I have been known to make exceptions to this as well. Recently, I favored a long article over one from the Short Article Trial for Lede 1. I also pushed the first China Eastern article out of the top 5 "before its time" because it looked odd to have two articles covering this side-by-side. In the past, I have also favored Original Reporting for Lede 1 over more recent news (by publishing time or occurrence). Basically, my rule of thumb is to consider what would serve the project best. That's my view on it. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 118th United States House of Representatives Speaker election results

I made a small news article about the results. 118th United States House of Representatives Speaker election results Squattuh (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Squattuh: Please see my comments on Talk:118th United States House of Representatives Speaker election results. This is not the place to discuss articles. Heavy Water (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Main Page/Archive 28" page.