Template talk:Xt

You can see a summary of most of this discussion, originally summarized by Unforgettableid, here.

---

This template is for what I call the "experimental talk" project. I believe article discussion should be fair game for talk pages, so that more people will learn to use the "edit this page" feature and become editors. What are your thoughts on experimental talk? Tell your fellow Wikipediholics on Template_talk:xt.

Also, if someone chose an appropriate icon from the selection of stub icons fro w:WP:WSS/ST, I would be very appreciative.

Finally, I encourage you to add this template, {{xt}}, to all your news articles. :) Only the first line will appear in the articles themselves. Unforgettableid 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This has come up before and I belive there's a policy against it. However If there isn't, you may be intreasted in User:Bawolff/idea. I personally think comments are a good think and will increase readership. Bawolff (- 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you need a separate page altogether, a "have your say" where the flaming fest can be contained. Talk pages are for working towards a better article, not discussion on the news in the article. Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bawolff, I like your idea. Could that "Post a comment" link be made into a template? Or even, could you modify this template to do that? Also, does anyone here know if there really is such a policy? Brianmc, would Bawolff's idea satisfy you? Try his idea page's button. It's fun, and it puts the comments right in your face. (ZDnet only shows subject headings of comments, we could show everything, like Slashdot does, with his idea.) Unforgettableid 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Insert {{User:Bawolff/comment}} at the bottom of any article. Bawolff (-

While it's not something to get into a huge argument about, the purpose of a talk page is to discuss and better an article -- if some conversation goes on, so be it. It's important to remember that Wikinews is not a bulletin board/news forum/chat group. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I found the link to Wikinews is not a bulletin board/news forum/chat group -- it's WN:NOT -- but why is this so? Letting our users edit in order to comment, will teach them how to edit pages. Unforgettableid 05:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If i remember correctly when this came up before, the main concerns have been NPOV SPAM and if we can delete spam coments/what comments can we delete. I think the best way to deal with that is deal with it as it comes up. We can always cancel the comment thing if its a misrible failure. I personnally like the idea of comments. I also could easily modify this template to do it as you describe. (not today, I've only got 5 minutes right now, but I could do it tommorow) I also think that comments would draw more readers, and also let people comment on how the story could be better if they wern't sure about editing. Another thing to look at is how many people complain about /. story submissions (Not another Dupe/Thats one of the worst written summaries of all time - learn to spell a, etc.), In Wikinews anyone who complains could fix the story. Bawolff (- 19:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to encourage discussion of the news, no matter how. One possible is to modify <inputbox> extenstion to allow on-the-fly article creations using a template from a link, so <inputbox>[[{{PAGENAME}}/Comments]]</inputbox> would create a link to edit a comments page which, if it did not already exist, would be pre-populated with a template which includes a category which excludes it from the developing articles list.

Until such a 'magic solution', however, I have no problem with talk and comments on the discussion pages. We might want conventions to point out sections as talk versus working on the article though. --Amgine fixed by Chiacomo 'cause Amgine needed some "nowiki" tags.

I would urge folks to just re-do the page template and change the "discussion" tab to a "collaboration" tab, and add a "discussion" tab pointing to, say, the "Comments:{{PAGENAME}}" article. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ilya, are you suggesting a new namespace? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes; I'm proposing that Talk: is about editing collaboration, and a new namespace be allocated for discussing the news. -- IlyaHaykinson 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

While I don't support discussing the news on Wikinews (except as relates to collaboration), if we must discuss, a different namespace with a different tab would be a good solution. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

With my template its on a sub-page, that could easily be changed to a different namespace without having to change all the tabs on the top of the page (not sure how hard it would be to change the interface. Just know its beyond my skill level.) Also if comments are directly on the article, it encourages more people to comment. Bawolff (- 00:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You may whish to ask Mr.M for more reasons to not to do comments, because if I remember correctly he was one of the main anti-comment people last time this was brought up.22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd much rather have this in a forum/message board system, however I don't think that's really feasible for the foundation to implement into MediaWiki. I don't generally like the idea of comments on articles, simply because it opens the door for anon message wars, then Admins questioning whether or not they should clean it up, etc. It's all a little too much IMO when users could just as simply create a free blog in under a few minutes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

MrM, usually, when someone creates a blog for themselves, only their friends read it. If people could post comments on Wikinews, all Wikinews readers would read it and as Bawolff agrees, this would draw traffic to Wikinews. Instead of going to the trouble of creating a new namespace right away, why don't we allow daring Wikinews contributors to include the {{User:Bawolff/comment}} template beneath their articles without fear of an admin erasing it? Unforgettableid 05:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I oppose permitting comments that are not collaborative in nature. Already, discussions on talk pages violate the NPOV rule of WMF projects, but I suppose this must be allowed. Discussion pages, as they exist even with NPOV comments, still exist primarily as a collaborative tool for the creation and editing of articles. A seperate "Comments" system would exist solely to allow biased/POV comments for articles -- which is contrary to the mission of Wikinews and the WMF. All that being said... If we're going to allow comments, I would not oppose a new namespace for these comments if we must have them. I will oppose and remove (as an editor, not an admin) the appearance of comments directly on article pages. If we must permit comments, they should not appear on the article page itself and any template which is placed on the article page should appear below sources and be as unobtrusive as possible -- ideally a single line in a regular font size.. For example: To comment on this article, click here . --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I generally only read comments on sites that have it on the article page. Ideally things whenever possible should be as few clicks as possible. The more clicks away the less likely someone to use it. Also a conversation that people see is more likely to draw them in. An alternative design for comments that we could use, and possible more constructive as well is something similiar to http://wikireason.org (new wiki, I think its a proposed project of WMF, not sure if its a demo or what.) P.S i brought this up at the water cooler, so more people will comment on it. My template will also put all comments on a subpage of a talk page so its not like there in the main namespace. It could be easily modified to use a new namespace if someone creates one. Bawolff (- 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I say, if we must have comments, the comments themselves should not appear on the article page itself as they will be NPOV and we don't want NPOV content on article pages... A link to a comments section would be acceptable -- if we must have comments. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm considering starting a wikiblog wikicity to handle comments for the various wikimedia projects. Of course, we could easily have comments here, but putting them on wikicities might allow the NPOV policy to remain more absolute here. And avoid spending wikinews server time on more complex code. Nyarlathotep 03:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of having comments on news, but there are a number of problems IMO. First is that Wikinews is a news site and not a blog, normally when you are reading an article on a website with commentary you are normally reading a blog. Do we want WN to look like just another blog? Secondly there are NPOV issues. Comments are rarely going to be neutral, you discuss and debate news and normally have a pre-defined point of view. If the author were to add a comment that wasn't neutral then it would look like their article was biased - Cartman02au 11:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Forum namespace

Like Ilya said above, maybe we should have a namespace for general discussions. We could call it the Forum namespace, e.g. Forum:Canadian federal election, 2006, since everyone knows what forums are. Then, we could declare that "NPOV applies to everything except the Forum: namespace." Does this sound like a good compromise? --Unforgettableid 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not at all. That is contradicting WN:NOT, and I do not believe most users are in support of such a measure. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree, I think a large portian of the comunity would support that. talking about this reminded me that no one objected to my proposal on the water cooler, which i forgot to do. (now in archives )[1] Bawolff (- 02:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I again state my entire objection to the idea of forums or discussions that are not directly related to the publishing of news articles or to the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikinews. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm experimenting, on one article only, to see how it works out. Experimenting and w:Wikipedia:Be bold is the Wiki Way. Unforgettableid 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is entirely opposed to the mission of wikinews and NPOV -- and NPOV is non-negotiable. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not opposed to the mission. It is somewhat related. More discussion = more users and better articles.

I would support an experiment. NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages. (just to see if it works or not). (I would also like to push my own template, as seen in user:Bawolff/idea. ) Bawolff (- 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bawolff, but doesn't yours cause the pages themselves to be edited? And that is even more controversial. :-) Unforgettableid 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

IT causes a sub page in the talk namespace to be edited. It just causes one less click, people see the notice in the page to go edit the discussion page already. Bawolff (- 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Although newbies would then fail to see others' comments before posting, leading to more duplication, it is easier to use. But isn't the "Talk" page not for general discussion? Unforgettableid 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

it uses a subpage of the talk page. (like talk:Random page/comments) Bawolff (- 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It can use any page in any ns. Bawolff (- 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, do you mind if I edit it to use the "Forum" fake-namespace and to make the template take up less space onscreen? Unforgettableid 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, edit away but it might break my example (which I don't care about) url is User:Bawolff/comment Bawolff (-

Allowed?

This template suggests something which is not allowed under current policy, including the non-negotiable WN:NPOV and Wikinews:What Wikinews is not. While I am sympathetic to the concept, I am also opposed to being implemented on Wikinews itself. I am especially opposed to implementing it in opposition to policy. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that NPOV applies to articles, not to pages in other namespaces like Talk (even though Forum is not a namespace), and especially not user subpages. Unforgettableid 03:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember Jimbo made all policies (besides npov which is wikimedia wide) works in progress (Category:Proposed policies) a while back.(if i understand things right) whats wrong with a little experiment? Bawolff (- 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and remember user pages can be completely non-NPOV, so I am restoring the template to the bottom of the article about the election results. Unforgettableid 05:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Amgine, keeping in mind that using an alternate server will require confusing templates and prevent single sign-on, what server can we use?? Or, how else can we, the Wikinewsies, work towards consensus on (in some people's books) "bending" the NPOV rules for an experiment, perhaps thereby drawing more traffic and more contributors?-- unforgettableid | talk to me 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly a confusing link. As for "bending" the NPOV rules, it is precisely why that policy is non-negotiable: You may not do so. Please keep in mind that discussion forums are not a part of the Wikinews mission; they may be helpful, useful, etc. but they are not part of what we do.

In case you are unaware, Wikinews is attempting to integrate with the blogosphere, to use categories as Technorati tags and to link trackbacks. What this allows is a wide-spread conversation of news articles created here on: people's blogs, through their comment sections, and even in some bulletin-board type forums.

As for this specific idea, consider you are already attempting to circumvent or alter the policies of the project in order to get it to fit. I am coming to believe that, were it to be integrated in any way directly on Wikinews, it would fundamentally alter the goals and missions of the project to become a soapbox forum, a debate and flame center rather than a collaborative community producing npov news articles. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not allowed. It is clearly stated that a soapbox or forum is not supported by Wikinews, that it is what Wikinews is not. I don't know how much clearer it can get; policy stops this template and concept. Besides, moderating these areas where the discussion is just going to be flame wars is redundant for the community, we'd be spending time gaining nothing. There should be no talk of going against policy, especially for something like this, which is clearly disallowed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe Xt would cause us to have less registered users and less contributions? If so, why? Respectfully, -- unforgettableid | talk to me 02:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to blame me for a rule, and I don't like it. It is in policy, and you must respect it. This is not allowed; no negotiations will take place. People read Wikinews because we're different: we're neutral. We actually attempt to make sure no side is advantaged over the other. We aren't a forum. That's not what Wikinews is. In fact, that's what we've been fighting against. Wikinews will never be a forum, nor will ever host a forum. That is policy. Additionally, we should be writing articles, not commenting about them. This is drifting users away from contributing, and will only comment, which is not a contribution. Voicing your opinion is fine in privacy, but we don't need to prove that we're neutral and allow all sides to be told. We've already proven that. If you all want, I suggest chipping in a few bucks US every month and purchasing your own server (I'll even configure it for you and install phpBB) to host a forum, but that's not what Wikinews does. This proposal and others alike only draft non-contributing users and distracts those already on. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Policys evolve as the project evolve's. No one is saying that we turn all the articles in to POV ridden opinion pices. All that is being sugested is to have a place to consider the implications of the information presented in the article. this in turn will probaly draw in more users and in my humble opinion would be a good thing. The articles will still, and always, be undisputably neutral. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's another distraction this wiki doesn't need, and will cause more harm than good. Guaranteed. NPOV never changes, and neither does the goal for this wiki. This proposal looks to overthrow both of them, without any good aspects in return. Perhaps it will bring in more registered users, but only so they can voice their opinion, not contribute anything useful to the wiki. It also opens doors for flame wars, vandalism, descreet advertising, spam, and will undoubtedly distract users who are now needed to moderate discussions instead of contribute to articles. No, there is no good I can see here - at least no good that comes anywhere near as much burden and loss this wiki will undoubtedly endure - the loss of two policies. I don't see any good in that. And for these users to justify this with an insignificant, unlikely scenario truly disturbs me. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, as has been stated elsewhere, does not evolve on the projects. If it evolves, it evolves at the Wikimedia Foundation Board. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 21:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, POV discussions about articles are something which cannot just be started willy-nilly. It needs to have community approval, and it needs to have board approval, and it needs to be done with much careful deliberation. This experimental template should be deleted.--Eloquence 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this somehow the wrong place for deliberation? Where else can it be discussed? And what is wrong with experimentation? Cheers, -- unforgettableid | talk to me 03:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete?

Is this template obsolete? If so we should update the documentation to refer to newer instructions, but keep it and its talk page as historical record. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, this is a rather old attempt that did not gain popular support. marked historical Bawolff ☺☻ 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)