Wikinews

User talk:SVTCobra

User page Collaboration
Active discussions
Golden file cabinet.png

Are you back?Edit

Are you back back? BRS is back. (Finally I get to say it. I freaking get to say that! Have been waiting since 2015, I trust. Would be great to have three reviewers. You never told us if you were really back, or maybe I missed that.
•–• 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't commit to anything. I have many things going on IRL which are far more important. I don't plan on "retiring" but I will not be able to say I will be here every day for a long time. I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Way overdueEdit

 
This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 100th published news article. Looks like you've got 259. I figure you reached #100 around November 4, 2007. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

List of articlesEdit

That list of articles you started on your userpage. Is there a bot for that I could use or did you fill it by hand? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It was all manually done. And I think a little out-of-date. Sorry if that's a disappointing answer. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Impressive, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

notificationsEdit

Are you interested in testing this tool? There are sign-up instructions on its page. --Gryllida (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I signed up. I am wondering, though, if you won't run into problems with people not spelling categories exactly the same as we have them in WN, etc. Cheers, and good luck. --SVTCobra 05:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added the list page for you, you'll get notifications shortly. The first one might be massive due to this possible bug and I usually simply remove it. The next ones are currently working as expected. Please just contact me, or query this talk page, to report bugs. Gryllida (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Was I supposed to get all the notifications I just got (see below)? --SVTCobra 06:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's OK if it is a test, of course. --SVTCobra 06:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's the possible bug in DynamicPageList, I just clicked 'edit source' and removed all content from that section. The next notifications after this will be normal. I expect to implement a workaround for it this week. Gryllida (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do I request un-deletion?Edit

I heard a few months ago that it was possible to un-delete an article. Someone just deleted an essay out of my userspace, giving an edit summary that I feel dangerously mischaracterizes my actions, and I'd like to put it back, not the least so people can see for themselves that it is harmless. Do you know where I can go to request this, through formal channels? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you found the appropriate section on WN:DR to request un-deletion. --SVTCobra 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I did, thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleting admin here; my perspective on the incident. Darkfrog24 wrote a page set up to look like recommended advice for newcomers, telling them we're here to write synthesis, long Wikipedia-style debates are great, and if they decided they didn't like how a discussion was going they could announce that everyone else would have to play a childish game (with the obvious corollary that Wikinews is a joke). It would have deserved to be deleted as either patent nonsense or trolling, or maybe vandalism, from the start, but instead I chose to treat it more seriously than it deserved, availed myself of the invitation to trim, and explained what I was doing, step by step. (I could have elaborated on each of those steps, but explaining things to Darkfrog24 has been consistently unrewarding, and I wasn't asked for further explanation.) Darkfrog24 reverted my edits with a trolling remark; I concluded the whole essay was an act of trolling, and deleted it as such. I might add some comments on the context for all this; but I'm posting this part first. --Pi zero (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Pi zero, none of that, not even if you sincerely believed the essay was trolling, meet our criteria for speedy deletion.
That is not what the page said. It was instructions for how to end a big, Wikipedia-style debate. By "availed myself of the invitation to trim," he means he said "this is nonsense" and blanked the entire thing.
Pi zero, would you please just put it back, by yourself, without turning this into a bigger deal than it already is? Maybe you were tired. Maybe you were in weird headspace. Just put it back and I'll remove the un-deletion request and we'll both take a nice deep breath. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I set out to comment here before Darkfrog24 started the request over at WN:DR. So now we've got stuff in multiple places. Sorry about that; nobody's intent, I'm sure, and I'll be focusing my remarks over there. (I can't say anything similarly sunny about Darkfrog24's other recent behavior on the project. But, over to the other page...) --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly possible for the deleting admin to restore the page and avoid the drawn-out process at WN:DR, something I loathe to have to sift through as these things always seem to carry baggage and drama. Since it has been submitted to WN:DR, I intend to make my pointed comments there and encourage all to move any further discussion away from my talk page. Sincerely, --SVTCobra 02:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: welcome-a-bit (March)Edit

Hi SVTCobra

It has been several weeks after you signed up for the 'welcome a bit' notification. Did it help you with editing new drafts? Do you wish to continue receiving the notifications?

This month I have identified a bug in DynamicPageList extension, which prevents me from excluding archived articles from the initial results. This has been addressed by suppressing the first notifications continue to work as expected.

I see you may have received some notifications twice, in the case when one article belongs to two categories which are interesting to you. I hope to fix this by the end of this month.

Do you have any suggestions for improvement? Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. I signed up mostly to allow you to test your new tool. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean I will have more time for Wikinews. I will, as has been the case for years now, be coming and going. Cheers, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikinews. --SVTCobra 00:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


US Department of Justice investigating Ford over emissions testing problemsEdit

May be interesting for you. The notifications tool didn't pick it up, as rather quickly it was in 'Review' category and not 'Develop'.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you know SVT Cobras were made by Ford? ;-) --SVTCobra 02:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow. This is a really nice car. I saw it at your user page before, but it didn't occur to me that this is where your nickname came from. Thanks for pointing out the link. Gryllida (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
(As a side note, if you know any literature about car mechanics or history, I would be immensely glad to check it out.) Gryllida (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

VotingsEdit

Some time when you're around, there are several open featured-article discussions; and as I write this there's an open bot-flag request; that could do with an additional voice chiming in. --Pi zero (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk page protectionEdit

Hi! Contacting you because I know you're active. Would you mind protecting my talk page here? I'm not active and don't plan on becoming active, and it's only been used for porn vandalism. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  Done I created a soft redirect to your home wiki. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Accidental sightingEdit

I think even I, once upon a time, accidentally sighted a page that hadn't passed a full review for publication. Anyway, I unsighted the revisions for you. --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Legit scratching my head. I am slightly intoxicated, but where did I ask for this? Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I've seen this happen about four, maybe five times in the decade-or-so I've been on en.wn. It's clearly not a mistake that happens easily, so it's really hard to say why it happens; very small sample size. --Pi zero (talk)
OK, Pi zero (t · c · b) but I don't know what you are talking about. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It happened again. Do not ever sight an unpublished page in mainspace. Somehow, you ended up sighting various revisions of 'El Chapo' Guzmán is sentenced in the United States; that should never happen. --Pi zero (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, now it makes sense. Yes, if it asked me to "auto-sight" I probably did check the box. I'll try to avoid doing that in the future. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Ugh! I hadn't noticed that box is available to be checked; it really shouldn't be there. Under no circumstances should that priv ever be given to anyone on this project; we voted as a community to get rid of it years ago. (That's another thing I wouldn't dare mention to the devs lest in tampering with that stuff they do more damage.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata gadgetEdit

There's a gadget one can turn on in one's preferences on Wikidata, in the first section of the gadgets tab ("Wikidata-centric"), called "move". It allows you to move all the Wikinews links of one item to another item. When it works right, anyway; it sometimes misfires. --Pi zero (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --SVTCobra 00:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

ArchivingEdit

I've made a point, for some time now, of always leaving at least ten articles unarchived on the main page, as a substantial representative sample of our work. It's mentioned as a common practice on the archive policy page, which also has a list of unarchived articles in chronological order with a mechanism to point out when there are more than ten. It's not going to mess anything up, in the long run, that we've archived one out of sequence, of course; any oddness will work its way out, when we've published another two articles (two because the one just archived was the second-oldest on the main page). But, so you know: the fact that article hadn't been archived wasn't an oversight. --Pi zero (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and you have personally reminded me of this at least three times. Sorry. --SVTCobra 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Heh. It happens. Better semi-automated tools could provide context-sensitive reminders of these sorts of things. --Pi zero (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Default sort Last First?Edit

Why? Not all names work in the fashion of Last First. Heck, my legal name, of said in that order would mean something disastrously incorrect. Various names across various traditions should not be tied to one particular structure. And to keep things simple, <First Last> should be kept, considering the global audience. What would be the reason to do the opposite?
•–• 02:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

False. Also <Fisrt Last> is not the way all names are written. It is widely accepted that family names are the primary sort. If you dispute that, please provide reliable and current research to support this position. In my work the last few days, I have paid very close attention to local traditions. Since your name is not a good example, I suggest you list a case where I have made a mistake. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
"It is widely accepted that family names are the primary sort" -- Why push encyclopædic style here? You would not see news articles writing "Zimmer, Hans to score XYZ movie", it would be "Hans Zimmer to score XYZ movie'. Consider this name: Cristiano Ronaldo -- Portuguese names, similar to Spanish names have maternal and paternal family names. I remember Milan's complete name would be Milan Piqué Mebarak. Those attempts are pushing for Wikipedia-like style, and still incorrect as it still would not get the complete name, which if attempted, requires verification, and beyond the project's scope.
•–• 02:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Listen, just because you hate Wikipedia doesn't mean you get to change the world here. Are you claiming to be an expert on the differences between Spanish and Portuguese names? LOL "requires verification" are you serious? Maybe your view requires verification. I don't care what you "remember" about Milah. I don't even know who they are. Start citing facts and references, please. --SVTCobra 02:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Surely all parties can afford to lower the tone a bit, here? This doesn't strike me as a direly important thing, to be worth a high-temperature dispute.

Not wanting to be encyclopedic, btw, whatever the merits of that motive might be in this case, does not require hating Wikipedia; sometimes an encyclopedic way of doing things is simply inappropriate to a news site, and sometimes one particularly wants to avoid poaching on our sister project's territory. --Pi zero (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's go back to microfiche and index cards and the old way of doing research. Oh, they also used surnames/family names as the primary index? Damn, history of the world is terrible. And while you want me to calm down, Pi zero (t · c · b), there is no reason for this baseless criticism. It is utter nonsense and ought to be recognized as such. --SVTCobra 03:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Fonte
•–• 03:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked at each one and they were all useless. Show me an alphabetic list of footballers where he is not sorted under 'R' but 'C' instead. That would be helpful in proving your case. --SVTCobra 03:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
the discussion is about the complete name, which you conveniently missed from default sort. The burden of finding the list is on you: a list which mentions his complete name and the sorting in order to add that default sort. On the contrary, there is a source used for an article which uses neither C nor R. And similarly, for every single person's category you have modified for this edit.
•–• 03:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict):No, it is not. Everyone knows it. And everyone sorts him under Ronaldo. Why do you think you are are greater expert in this than all other people? --SVTCobra 03:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2 w:Portuguese name#Collation (from Wikipedia, unsourced) gives it that you sort but the final lastname in a directory. Presumably, he'd be sorted as "Santos Aveiro, Cristiano Ronaldo dos". Cristiano Ronaldo is what most people would call him, and you almost certainly refer to him as "Ronaldo" in a news story. It makes more sense here to sort him as "Ronaldo, Cristiano" since I would imagine people would treat Ronaldo as a his sole lastname, not knowing his full name. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Stepping back to look at this whole thread, it presents a good practical reason to not override the default sort order for person categories. The default order doesn't require anyone to know culturally determined rules about which part of the name is the primary sort key. --Pi zero (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Two-time FIFA World Cup And Copa America winner "Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima" is the well known Ronaldo. As far as your unverified claims of "everyone knows it" — prove it. To begin with, I have not seen any explanation why the fuck would you want to make Wikinews encyclopædic. That is not the job of Wikinews, nor does that format appear in the news format. Until you explain the reason why a news site should take on this action, stop changing the default sort, and if you can not provide a reasonable justification, the edits should be reverted.
•–• 10:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated, but while everyone is here is there any chance someone can review Tropical depression Chantal approaches Florida? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Fwiw, I mostly don't trust myself to be sharp enough for full review at this time of night (it's just after midnight where I am). A few years ago I could, and sometimes did, stay up all night reviewing, but it's gotten more difficult for me. --Pi zero (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Acagastya: See Ronaldo. If you don't understand how people research news, I suggest you stop commenting. The reasonable justification is self-evident throughout the course of history of indexing people. Just because you say Wikinews should do things differently is a weak argument. Try to demonstrate an alternative system of indexing which is widely used. --SVTCobra 11:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

linking to an encyclopædia to act like an encyclopædia. Nice logic.
•–• 11:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
At least it is some logic, of which you have none. --SVTCobra 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Less personal, on both sides, please.

I see two reasonable concerns here; both open to discussion, both reasonable:

  • Concern that the act of sorting these names by family and then personal name is itself a task more characteristic of an encyclopedia, or a dictionary, than of a news project; or, at least, that a news project could benefit by avoiding such a task.
  • Desire to provide researchers in our archives with an "alphabetical" list of people for whom information is available.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata exists for the alphabetical list which can be mapped to enwn to get desirable list. How about we stick to news and stop trying to be sister projects?
•–• 13:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have not asked anyone to undertake this task. I am doing this of my own volition. It is no more a characteristic of an encyclopedia than it is of a phone book or any catalogue of people. If it is too burdensome, I'll self-sight going forward. I rarely change the categories anyway. I'll just make notes about the problematic ones and bring them up when I am finished. This thread, however, is about Cristiano Ronaldo aka CR17. It is absurd that he should be indexed under 'C' and I defy anyone to prove so. --SVTCobra 13:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If you disagree, well, then we probably shouldn't have Category:News articles by person at all. Just let Wikidata handle it all! As if that is an answer. --SVTCobra 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts.
  • The existence of the category seems to me to be valuable regardless of its sort order.
  • It's undesirable to import information automatically —thus, without local vetting— from Wikidata. If the information belongs here, it should be maintained here. (I would like to set up semi-automation to aid in manually checking for discrepancies between projects.)
  • In favor of putting in place the overriding of default sort order: SVTCobra is willing to go to the effort of putting all this in place; basically, if we ever want to try this, now is the time to do so.
  • Possible drawbacks to doing so:
  • Once we've done it, it becomes socially/politically difficult to decide later to remove it (though it's technically fairly easy). That only pertains, of course, if we want to remove it later.
  • There is some amount of effort implied for the future, incumbent on any future Wikinewsie who sets out to create a new person category, to set up the sort key for the new person category. This might be mitigated by semi-automated assistance that does not yet exist.
  • Outstanding question: Which sort order would actually be more useful to someone searching in our archives? As part of this, how significant is the sort order, as a vector for a researcher who is looking for a person in our archives? The family-name-first convention has considerable prevalence; on the other hand, it has the drawback that, given a person's name, if a researcher wants to know where in the alphabetical listing to look for a name, they have to know how to apply the convention to that name. We do not, at this time, have the wherewithal to list each name in multiple places in the sort order: the wiki software only lists each name once.
  • On the side, the sorting order becomes a possible subject for disagreements between Wikinewsies, as this thread demonstrates. The most effective way to deal with disagreements about specific decisions, when opportunity arises, is to arrange to not make the decision that the disagreement was about.
--Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Tell me about yourselfEdit

Why delete my page? Lace jack (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Who are you? Lace jack (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

html commentsEdit

Hope I didn't step on your toes, over that edit. I'm not really sure what was going on there; I didn't see anything problematic about the edit. --Pi zero (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all. I was going down for a couple hours of sleep and saw the edit summary on our top story. My sleepy mind leaped to the conclusion a comment or quote from the story was removed, so I disapproved the edit. Slightly more rested now, I realize as it was unsighted anyway, it deserved a closer look before any action, since no random reader would have been able to see it anyway. Danny is new, but clearly one of our best prospects in a while. I have already apologized to them. It was lazy on my part because I didn't bother to hit the 'diff' button to see exactly what was changed. --SVTCobra 05:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ImagecaptionEdit

Re captions/credits on category images, I recommend encouraging gradual migration toward providing those on an ever-increasing proportion of category images.

Noticed you'd removed a caption/credit where you weren't changing the image. Wondering whether this is one of those those things where you're looking for uniformity? I'm less of a believer in uniformity; most of the major improvements in curating the site, over the years, have had to be taken piecemeal, the whole being far too big to do all at once, so we've tried improvements here and there, and if they work we do more of them, and gradually it becomes the new preferred mode. One long-term hope that's been batted about is semi-automated advice to reporters on possible images for articles, and the way we have in mind to do that is by drawing images from related categories — which doesn't work if the category images don't have captions/credits attached to them. So I've been adding captions/credits to category images at opportunity over the years. --Pi zero (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never liked the {{image credit}} because imho it is superfluous as the information is available with a simple click on the photo. I conformed to it for the article space because people were making print and pdf versions of Wikinews articles which couldn't be clicked. Categories are for navigation only and there shouldn't ever be a print version. Captions on category photos are utterly redundant. They are all "File photo of X" maybe with a year included. I have tended to leave them alone, however, unless (as you point out) I change the photo. With Desmond Tutu, I was very close to changing the photo, but didn't, but I had already blanked the caption.
There are two other reasons, I don't like the captions in category photos, and they are both aesthetic. The caption and credit look ugly, squeezed in between the photo and the bar that says "Sister projects". Unless the photo is horizontally orientated, the captions and credits add to the whitespace between the DPL list and the "Pages in category" section, which I already feel is a problem with vertical photos. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It is legally superfluous, I agree (although we've got one active Wikinewsie around atm who might disagree on that point). BRS has, I've noticed, described image credits as "a courtesy", which I agree with up to a point, and certainly when it's meant to contrast with "a legal requirement"; however —and not meaning to belittle the merits of courtesy as a motive— I also think it has peripheral advantages associated with attribution: it informs the reader of where the image comes from, and further encourages the reader (and the Wikinewsie who puts it up in the first place) to think about where information comes from. (Because some things bear repeating: I consider promoting awareness of where information comes from to be an important public service.) Likewise, captions are important by informing readers of what they're looking at (and, again, making them think about the origins of what they're looking at). And, as I mentioned, seeding all this meta-information in the categories facilitates potential use of categories as sources of advice for article-writers.

I do agree that excessive vertical space just below the image in the {{topic cat}} layout can be annoying. I prefer, when I can, to write captions that don't take more than one line, for this reason (though I still prioritize this below providing the information). One might ask whether there is a fundamentally different layout {{topic cat}} might use that would obviate the problem, though I don't see how, off hand. --Pi zero (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've tried a variant of {{image}} on Category:George H. W. Bush, variant of your experiment there with keeping the image credit on the same line with the caption. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It obviously works which is a good thing. Is it easier than just typing the credits manually? Don't really think so, which has also always been a gripe of mine with {{image}}, {{image credit}}, {{image source}}. A truly useful template would just pluck the information from the file's page at Commons (or locally) automatically. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Well... I'd rather have an assistant helping to set up the template, so there's always a human involved in the decision-making process, but yes, snarfing data from elsewhere ought to be useful. Note, the template uses slightly smaller font and plainlinks, both of which save horizontal space and would be impractical without a template. --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
On a related note, insofar as it deals with images and templates, I was working on a bit of the backlog of missing images. I found that {{missing image}} breaks {{gallery}} and {{picture select}} when applied to images within them. See Warhol's legacy ... (file 14 in image select just before sources) and Fan Expo Canada (last image in second gallery) for examples where I tried to apply it. It also doesn't work with <gallery mode> as seen in Maker Faire. I doubt there's an easy fix, so should we just ignore those cases? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm aware {{missing image}} doesn't work for gallery etc, yet; I have it on my punch list to try to do something about that. (I'm still amazed that {{missing image}} works at all.) I don't think the solution will be quite as simple for galleries etc as it was for standalone images, but we should be able to do something useful; and in the long run I'd hope to have an assistant to help sort through the logistics. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
A simple solution would just be to replace with File:ImageNA.svg but that would obviously lose the original file name and not have a link to the log. How important are those elements? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
My inclination is to hold off on addressing the ones in galleries-etc until we've got a somewhat more streamlined version of the technique demonstrated at Total lunar eclipse occurs in July 2018 (which I evidently figured out how to do, once, and promptly saved a link to on my punch list so I could find it again later to study how to make it work a little more smoothly).

As you note, the extra machinery helps assure that we can find the problem cases again later, as well as providing additional caption information explaining what happened, why, etc. We limped along for seven years or so before cobbling together {{missing image}}, so presumably we can survive a bit longer to smooth out the gallery-etc case. --Pi zero (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. I suspect, however, that it will be {{gallery}} etc. which will need to be adapted/modified, rather than {{missing image}}. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 This may be a crazy idea, but when the missing images are in a gallery, etc. we could put the full {{missing image}} on the talk page of the article with File:ImageNA.svg going in place of the image in the actual article/gallery. Just a thought, cheers, --SVTCobra 05:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Head's upEdit

Regarding the logos category for the category of football logos, I think it would be better to keep logos and not the category. Did you have any other views for that?
•–• 15:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind Category:Football (soccer) club logos being a subset of Category:Logos. There are a lot of logos. We may even want to think of other subsets. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I should have checked if you reverted me, which you did. That gives different meaning to your comment. Football logos are absolutely a subset of logos. (For some reason I thought you were talking about merging the categories). --SVTCobra 15:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Did not know if the plan was to have cat:logos to have sunsets or not. I think football category logos might be just marginally helpful as most of them are club's logo, and can be doubt using DynamicPageList (football intersection logos) (CC@Pi zero: for correcting me if I am missing something). I wonder should there be more internal categories: bank logos? Search engine logos? And are those helpful and necessary? Thinking about it gives me shivers (and may be because I am not wearing a shirt and it is a cold night). I had reverted, but left it unchecked so we discuss this first.
•–• 22:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we need to get that specific, but there might be some useful ones, such as corporate logos, government logos, event logos. --SVTCobra 22:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What purpose could be served by separating different kinds of logos into separate categories? I don't see it. Sounds like a lot of extra work in setting them up, requiring sorting them into separate bins that then only make things that much harder to find if somebody looks for something later. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a futurist problem and not something I feel a need to do. It's just a thought, because as you can see, we already have one separate bin. So do you think Category:Football (soccer) club logos should be eliminated, or allowed to exist as a subcategory of Category:Logos? --SVTCobra 23:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The benefit would be to provide a way for authors to easily locate existing media to avoid uploading duplicates (of which we have more than a couple). Is it worth the effort? Perhaps not. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Socialist Party (France)Edit

It does seem like a pretty natural next one to create. Do you have in mind to create it, or were you hoping I would? --Pi zero (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I just did. It was supposed to take just seconds, but my mouse fell off the desk (and somehow bounced into the bottom drawer). It took me a while to find it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)--SVTCobra 21:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I've had stuff like that happen to me. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"It's always in the last place you look" which is naturally the case, but I was actually moving furniture in my search. BTW, if you get a Windows 10 update notification, be aware it is a big one. You might want to schedule it instead of doing it immediately. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Warning appreciated, but I gave up on Microsoft when they stopped servicing Windows 98. --Pi zero (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. I tried to convert to Linux via Ubuntu (maybe a decade ago), but it just wasn't practical. FWIW, Windows is far more stable nowadays. #Iamnotashill. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Person categoriesEdit

Most of the time, we tackle big curation tasks on Wikinews incrementally; like {{w}}izing the archives, which after eight years are still only about one third done. Which has its merits, as we have time to evolve our practices and slowly work out how to do things. From time to time, though, we can impose order on a sizeable piece of things in a relatively short time, generally with a large dose of initiative from someone, and when that comes together well it can be pretty awesome too. As now. Have I remarked, amidst all our thrashing out details, that I think what you're doing with the person categories is great? --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Pi. I appreciate the encouragement. Sorry for letting time run out on the ArbCom election. I did intend to vote and it would have broken the tie. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?! See: Mashrafe Mortaza and Category:Mashrafe Mortaza. Aside from the lack of articles, this is almost exactly what I would do. --SVTCobra 06:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It does look like a well-put-together category, other than, as you say, no articles. Hopefully, if they can figure that out, they can figure out how to write passable articles. --Pi zero (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019Edit

You have been elected to this season's ARBCOM. This would be your first time, right? The new team's term is under effect from August 4.
•–• 04:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I did notice. And yes, it is my first time. Let's hope it is uneventful. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there was a heated case that was taken to the ArbCom in recent years. Well, I guess some would have noticed, because of the time zones. I could not formally inform on talk earlier since it was way past my bedtime. Next year, let's tweak the time so it is not at the middle of the night for the committee.
•–• 05:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

image on High school orders shot glasses as prom favorsEdit

How did you determine that this is the identical photograph? (I really feel there's something about this situation I'm just plain missing.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I downloaded it from Commons before it got deleted. I was the one who transferred it from Wikipedia to Commons back in 2009 so that we could use it in this article. (It was tagged PD-USGS, so I thought no more of it). But since I did that, I was the one who got the notification of the imminent deletion. So I immediately downloaded it. I changed the name to avoid any naming conflict, but it's still on my hard drive with the original name. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, that's the inside view of the situation I was missing. All makes much more sense now; thanks. :-) 

Multiple accountsEdit

Hi, thanks for the ping. I have responded to your message. I would have appreciated, however, that you wrote on my talk page first. Kind regards. --Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

requested articlesEdit

could u see if u could find another source for 2 shot in dc? thanks Baozon90 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any yet. The Fox source is less than an hour old, so I guess they were first. --SVTCobra 12:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Spanish namesEdit

For what it's worth, Wikipedia has a general note it uses for articles with people using the Spanish naming custom, like with w:Ricardo Rosselló. I think it's shorter? —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I have studied it and other guides. Your boy Ricardo is of course Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares which means his family name (with which to index) is Rosello. If he were Portuguese or Brazilian, the family name would be Nevares. And a lot of times, they drop names when they become famous. See our entry on Cristiano Ronaldo for example. But it gets more complicated than that. See my note on Category talk:Najib Razak. I am trying to be very diligent, but if you catch a mistake, fix it or let me know. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

BemusementEdit

I entirely approve of your replacement of the image at Pornography, but it did make me chuckle at my own expense, because I'd had a really hard time pinning down the who-and-where of the previous picture that we now no longer use there. --Pi zero (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you had to go to French Wikipedia. BTW, English Wikipedia has had a massive purge of porn stars. They modified their notability requirements and numerous award-winning porn stars were deleted (I think they have to be ground-breaking now). Sorry to wipe out your work. More stuff appropriate for a Sunday. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A big thank you...Edit

 
...for your attention to the sources and the big picture, and how to rewrite it in the existing story. I saw it at this article and was amazed how you and DannyS712 are working it out together. --Gryllida (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's see how DannyS712 accepts it. I may have insulted him by rewriting it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The images in categoryEdit

I would generally go for those photos which had an EXIF data, and I think one should choose to. If a media has valid EXIF data, the chances of that media being incorrectly licensed is significantly lower than that of the one not having it, and is less likely to be deleted from Commons, if one were to file a DR. Let me know if you think otherwise.
150.129.88.45 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is in response to the image I added to Category:Zinedine Zidane or something else, but I take several steps to ensure it's not only a quality recent photo, but that it is properly licensed. For Flickr images, for instance, I check that it came from a legitimate account and not Flickr-washing. That is, it is from a legit organization or professional photographer. In the case of amateur photographers, I browse their body of work and ask myself if it makes sense that they could have taken the photograph. EXIF data is a factor, but not the preeminent one. Images can be downloaded with the EXIF data intact from many places. One image I was worried about was File:Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (May 2012).JPG. It has EXIF data but is the only upload (indeed only contribution on any project) by the user. But it has stood the test of time and is widely used on many projects (mainly through the cropped version). Lastly, if a category image does get deleted on Commons, we can just replace it. We don't archive these, so we won't be stuck with {{missing image}} in its place. Let me know if there any specific images I used which you feel are untrustworthy. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Nothing as such, it just reduces the burden of finding the categories with missing photos, replace, and repeat this process for eternity. It was about Zidane's yes. I would have thought you make the careful check, but you know, "just in case" situations.
103.254.128.98 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That image is from Tasnim News Agency. It's still up on their site and it has proper licensing. No need to worry about EXIF data. It just means they edited it before posting. --SVTCobra 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
They edited? More like stripped away the metadata, which is often the red flags we see at Commons, and just to avoid possible deletions I do not use it. One is free to do otherwise. :-D
103.254.128.98 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they edit their photos. They are obviously not full resolution and they add a watermark and a black bar with the photographers name (which is usually removed again because modifications are allowed). It is not a red flag for Tasnim. They are a well-known entity with their own template for marking their specific license. Didn't you look at Commons:File:Zinedine Zidane by Tasnim 02.jpg? It has been reviewed by one of your fellow license-reviewers, as well. I am not a n00b at Commons. --SVTCobra 16:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

user space for writing news?Edit

help??? so i dont cclog up recent changes. Baozon90 (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can create User:Baozon90/Sandbox by clicking the red link. In fact, you can create any page which would be useful to you in your user space, such as User:Baozon90/Draft or whatever. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Leon van Biljon.jpgEdit

I believe it was taken from a phone, Facebook categorised it under Mobile Uploads. I tried to reduce size of the photo, but then, the face was unidentifiable. What do you suggest?
•–• 03:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

1200 by 800 pixels and 204KB can't be considered "high resolution" by any modern standard, so I think it is fine. I added to why it's not replaceable, but otherwise the fair-use rationale looks good. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical orderingEdit

Re your remark about clumping together of names, it has come to my attention that all serial killers are named Steve. --Pi zero (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a friend named Steve. Next time I visit, I am going to see if parts of his house are strangely locked up or his back yard has too many spots which have recently been dug up. Thanks for the advice. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Having just curated our friends in this category, I think (as a precaution and reasonable presumption of guilt), we should move all people with the given names Stephen, Stephane, Stephanie, Steve or Steven into Category:Serial killers. Furthermore, it wouldn't be unjustified to include people with the surnames Stevens. --SVTCobra 13:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Boat Fire articleEdit

....published. We could really use a super fresh article on that one (as so much stuff is changing quickly)....but yours was very well formatted! --Bddpaux (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the story, SVTCobra! The "This is probably the worst-case scenario you can possibly have," quote is probably accurate. :-(.. Gryllida (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Related newsEdit

Passing thought: that bit that got cut, with the stuff about democratic reform and whatnot? Was wondering if that might have been in the related news (I've gotten caught out by that a few times). --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, OK, I will check. I must admit I didn't read those fully, but DF (with their notation) attributed it entirely to Guardian. --SVTCobra 03:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
After reading, there were mentions of a list but nothing specific about "releases" or "investigations of police". --SVTCobra 03:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it was a thought.

Yeah, I noticed the html comment. Though I don't trust those, neither when I do nor when I don't find the tagged fact in the named source. --Pi zero (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am a bit leery, too. As a reviewer, it can feel "Hey Great, that's where the info is! Easy!" However, a crafty POV editor could quickly learn to lead a reviewer around by the nose with these crumbs. I am aware of it but with "super msn" sources the danger is fairly low. Also, I have wanted (for weeks) to find a way to do an OR piece on the Hong Kong situation. Obviously, it is being reported a lot differently inside China, but China is also doing some extroverted (dis)infomation campaigns. I found an American YouTube channel that is just pure China propaganda ... fascinating. He's really good, too. He found a way to turn the Chewbacca defense into a Chewbacca offense. I can't believe I forgot his name (bald guy, claims to be a cult survivor). P.S. Did I do OK with the "make lead" tool? Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)--SVTCobra 04:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Archives splash pageEdit

Fwiw (in case I haven't bored you with this already), prompted by remarks a few years ago, one of the semi-automation projects I'm working on is a redesign of our archives splash page. You can see my under-development prototype at User:Pi zero/Archives. --Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I recall seeing that before. I like the style. BTW, will {{Monthpage}} remain part of the archive navigation? If so, it would be nice to be able to click to go to the next or previous month. If it's not going to be part of the new system, don't bother. --SVTCobra 15:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
While tinkering with {{datepage}} lately I'd had a similar thought about navigation links. This gets into questions about how the pages are meant to be used. The datepages are meant, as I understand it, primarily to be transcluded elsewhere; browsing use seems to have been originally envisioned for the date categories themselves (which also gets into some dubious experiments in automatically transcluding "briefs" pages in date categories, something I might eventually go after in some free moment between higher-priority tasks). I don't think atm any of those project pages will be used on the splash page. (I see some of those templates are waiting to have their documentation written...) --Pi zero (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

VandalEdit

Please block this vandal complete https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600%3A6C64%3A617F%3AF8EB%3AFC01%3AA020%3A8B26%3A3597 --WikiBayer (talk)

2 Socks https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chad_Khruizir_Vs_Virgin_Wikhinews and https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikhinews_Is_Fucced_By_The_Chad_Khruizir --WikiBayer (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those names, too. --SVTCobra 16:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SVTCobra,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikinews and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sister linksEdit

My understanding is that sister links are amongst those peripherals that aren't strictly article content, so changing them isn't absolutely prohibited under the archive policy. Like replacing an infobox, we don't want to go hog wild with it, but judicious changes are possible. --Pi zero (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

TaoiseachEdit

I'd been thinking we could have a category for these folks (I added personal cats for several of them last night), and had in mind to use the Irish term rather than calling them prime ministers. However, this would raise a technical question. We've been naming such categories "Category:<plural-of-title> of <country>" (e.g., "Category:Prime ministers of Pakistan"). So... what should be the plural of taoiseach (which is pronounced TEEshukh)? Wiktionary says in English one can either add -s or, of course, change the -each to -igh.

Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is some tricky grammar. And I will say we call it Category:Prime ministers of Ireland on the grounds that it is not English, but rather Gaelic or Irish. We have "Prime ministers of Japan" not "Shushō of Japan" (or whatever the plural of Shushō is). Then we can point to it with both versions of the plural of Taoiseach with redirects. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The point about Japan is well taken. --Pi zero (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
In setting up this category, I note the Commons category is called "Taoisigh". :p  --Pi zero (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting; practically all languages of Wikipedia use Taoiseach. --Pi zero (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
They also seem to say "Taoisigh" is the plural. --SVTCobra 04:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Someone raised this very question at w:Talk:Taoiseach#Just call it Prime Minister in the Title. --Pi zero (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
w:Hiberno-English is a pretty solid counter-argument. --SVTCobra 13:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed; when I'm fully woke up this morning I might just rename. (Btw, I've got an edit pending to the just-published obit, which I've hesitated to self-sight.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I need to wake up, too. Drinking coffee now. I'm not convinced he died today. (Preparing to wrap my mind around the international date line, etc, but the Australia source is dated September 11. --SVTCobra 13:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Correction: The Guardian was dated September 11, when I read it last night as the last thing I did before bed, (now it's dated September 12 (00:06 British time)). --SVTCobra 13:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
(I don't think it's a matter of our SG catching up, btw; at any rate, by my understanding of our SG, we wouldn't italicize ABC but would italicize ABC News.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Corners?Edit

I'm occasionally baffled/fascinated by differences in the way you perceive language versus the way I do. Afaik there's nothing remotely problematic about using the word corner to describe the angles of a triangle, or of any other polygon provided the angles don't get too close to   radians. Fwiw, en.wp article "Polynesian Triangle" uses the word "corners". Though I've got respect for someone who knows the singular and plural forms of vertex. :p  --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ditto, my friend. I am still not over the "an historic" thing or the metro. LOL. No, I am 'over it' but I don't understand. Anyway, geometry was without a doubt my favorite subject in school. Yes, I did see the use of corners at w:Polynesian Triangle before making the change, but w:Bermuda Triangle does not. Only quadrilaterals (squares and rectangles for noobs) have corners strictly speaking. But at some level, it bothered me linguistically, too. "Four corners of the world" etc. Also, I am aware of city intersections called "Five Corners". Thanks for accepting my OCD on this one.😃 Cheers,
On the side in all this, I was thinking of the tricorner hat.
Mein Hut, der hat drei Ecken
Drei Ecken hat mein Hut
Und hätt' er nicht drei Ecken
So wär er nicht mein Hut
--Pi zero (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, but it is Tricorne (no 'r' at the end) which puts it closer to 'horn' than 'corner' is. "Horn" is incidentally the origin of these terms, see wikt:corner. "Ecken" is more related to edge (thus sides) than the point where lines intersect. I am surprised I remember that much of my German. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

DeletionEdit

Though it's an annoying pain, I recommend deleting the article-content in the automatically generated edit summary before deleting a page. The article content sometimes contains material that should not be made visible in the deletion log and RC (and so may call for further hiding the edit summary), and may also crowd out of the summary more important information (as just happened, where the wikilink for the IP who created the page got disabled by losing the second right-square-bracket off the end of the summary). It seems to me this poorly-chosen "feature" of the wiki platform was recently made worse by an "upgrade" that lengthens the edit summary so there's even more that has to be manually deleted; but, c'est la vie. --Pi zero (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects?Edit

Cf. Category talk:Cornell University#Populate. --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Is there a cutoff for {{haveyoursay}} or do we do it to even the oldest articles. I remember the 2009 cutoff for whether redirects are 'discretionary' or not. --SVTCobra 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no cutoff for hys. --Pi zero (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

quick review - weather articles go stale quicklyEdit

Hi. Do you think you could take a look at Tropical Storm Humberto upgraded to hurricane status? I just submitted it for review, and only have an hour before I need to get back to work. I see that you are online currently. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

articlesEdit

i have skitzoeffective disorder. sorry for confusion. Baozon90 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for tidying up my article. Do you know of any admins on Commons, I cannot find a search term which works. Thanks again mate! Seemplez (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. I don't have a personal relationship with any of the admins on Commons, but you can see this list Commons:Commons:List of administrators by recent activity for the most active admins on Commons (the box on the right-hand side). Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Engineer killed while working on travelator at London Waterloo stationEdit

Hi. It might be missing some key elements. Can you have a shot at it?
•–• 20:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Acagastya:   Doing... --SVTCobra 20:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done and resubmitted. I don't blame the original author for why it was so short. The sources were just as short. --SVTCobra 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thankfully somebody else reviewed it. I thought you were going to do it. Why else ask? --SVTCobra 05:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Geocat imagesEdit

I'm wondering what your philosophy is on what sort of image one puts on a geocat. --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I ponder it myself, too. I do have a few criteria which I consider: 1) It needs to tie to the Cat as described in intro 2) I prefer recent images 3) I prefer high resolution images
If I stumble upon a UNESCO Heritage Site, I give that preferential consideration. For popular subjects, Commons will often have sub-categories like "Valued Images" or "Featured Images", so I will try to choose from them.
For counties (I haven't yet dealt with US states) I try not to use the biggest city (especially if we also have a cat for it, too). These larger areas deserve a view of the overall, so it could be a landmark somewhere else.
I hope that helps. I decided long ago, the photos should be positive. Not trying to paint them any particular way, but the only way I could resolve NPOV was to just select photos that looked as good as possible. --SVTCobra 00:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Those are plausible thoughts. I don't have a clear vision on this, just some miscellaneous thoughts, of which here are a couple.
  • I know BRS has remarked on various occasions he enjoys finding great images on Commons that aren't being used anywhere, and using them on our categories. Presumably some of the images you've been replacing are of that ilk. I've wondered what I should think about that (no answers here, just the question).
  • I've noticed that on TV News, when they're talking to a guest at another location, they generally put behind that person an image of the place where they are that contains within it some "signature" object of that place. If they're talking to someone in Seattle, the background image includes the Space Needle. If someone in Boston (that's local for me), the Zakim Bridge (I've looked on Commons; didn't see any image there that did justice to it — from the right angle that bridge is amazing, and instantly replaced the images they used to use for Boston before it was built). I'm not sure what to make of that, either, but I've noticed it; and it's struck me that one has to have some local knowledge of place to know what one sight best captures it.
--Pi zero (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
And believe it or not, I try to just find a better image of the same thing if the geo-cat already had an image. (Especially with Scotland - LOL). But landmarks can be important in conveying location. TV news isn't just doing it for aesthetics. Yes, BRS is right, selecting images is a voyage. Often I am wowed. And there are probably a few occasions where I selected an image which wasn't exactly representative just because it was a great photo of something that looked great. It also occurred to me, I may have put photos in island nations when we don't normally have photos for a member of Category:News articles by country. That tropical sea water is too seductive. --SVTCobra 01:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Changing protectionEdit

Who know? Apparently under suitable conditions (whatever they are), the software allows changing the protection on a page to what it already is. --Pi zero (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand. Do you have an example? --SVTCobra 03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably Hurricane Humberto strengthens to Category 3 while approaching Bermuda, where you (probably accidentally) protected it as "...[Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users]..." and, in the same minute, Pi zero protected it as "...[Move=Allow only administrators]...", not realizing that your protection levels for moving were different --DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup, just me overlooking the difference. --Pi zero (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Great. As long as it's fixed. I am running out of energy. --SVTCobra 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you (both) for your help with my latest article. I'm glad it got published so quickly; weather articles can go stale so fast --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SVTCobra,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@RMaung (WMF): Upon you second request, I answered a couple of questions, but I very quickly did not like the tone of the survey. Very quickly it was like a political litmus test. Are you asking me to be a good little soldier in whatever this 2030 vision is? How can you even ask about it if I have never heard about it? And why haven't I heard about it? I think that is a good question. --SVTCobra 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts on this?Edit

Looking over our essay pages, I'm thinking Wikinews:Never assume might be relabeled as a guideline. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Answered at talk page --SVTCobra 01:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ughEdit

im horrible at this news writing thing. everything i do gets deleted. should i even be here? thnx. Baozon90 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I know it's hard. Most people here want to be journalists and/or write the news. You have story ideas, basically. You give minimum information, though sometimes a source, but then you want other people to write the story. You have told me it is because it is hard for you because of some issues. I fully sympathize, but your suggestions tend to be very local news. For me, this is rarely interesting. Like you, I see many stories every day which I want to write about. I only have so many hours in a day for Wikinews. I write only a fraction of the news I want to write. And then there are your ideas/suggestions. Should I stop writing about Iran because you want an article about a guy in Wyoming who was killed by police? I don't think that is fair. I hope you understand. --SVTCobra 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

scheduleEdit

Fwiw. Today UTC (tomorrow, my time) I'll be off-line from roughly local noon to three, UTC 1600–1900. (Crossing my fingers, keeping in mind that so far we've had at least one publication each day this month.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I may have something at that time --DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Any chance of a morning review? --SVTCobra 10:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I figured yesterday that the UK court decision was due out at 5:30am my time. I can take a shot at it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:CourtsEdit

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. --Pi zero (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Indeed, they don't. And I never understood why. Speaking of inquisitions, do you intend to review US Speaker Pelosi announces Trump impeachment investigation tonight? If not, I'll take a crack at it and you can have the Grateful Dead obituary when you wake up. --SVTCobra 01:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Um. I'm worried about the Pelosi article, as you may see on its talk page. I'd be tempted to try to figure it out and fix it myself if I knew somebody else would review it... --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks muchly for the review. --Pi zero (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Jacques ChiracEdit

If this is perchance submitted with a few hours left before midnight UTC, I'll try to review before then. --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:SwazilandEdit

I {{infobox}}ed it. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't quite done it right, though. I'll try again. --Pi zero (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay. Now I see the problem. Calls for some design adjustments to {{infobox}}, not to be decided hastily. --Pi zero (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Done. --Pi zero (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. Didn't seem worth upgrading to me as the infobox since it is just here for archival purposes at this point. I just hope the category is in OK condition as it was renamed, too. I meant to leave you a message about it, but then I went to sleep again. --SVTCobra 19:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't worth the time I put into it this morning, though the trouble there was that I didn't realize it was going to take that much time. As for upgrading the template, though, the flexibility of that template has been an issue for a long time now, and in this case it turned out to be easy, involving scarcely any change to the code of the template and providing a very straightforward degree of flexibility. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SVTCobra,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Voracious fishEdit

diff? Is that a source, or an external link? I admit to curiosity what's going on with this. --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe it should be moved to external. However, it was referenced in the lede and not listed below. It felt like a source to me just because it was so new and not a static reference, per se. But if the article was written without it, well, I don't know. --SVTCobra 02:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
External link, if it wasn't used by the reporter. I've a feeling adding a source is used somewhere as an examplar of something a reviewer can't do... though I've been known to make explicit sources that were used, e.g. things mentioned in reporter's notes on the article's talk page. (Yeah, I shouldn't kibitz; sorry about that, chief.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 22:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 10:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 00:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 04:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 16:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

  • Davood ghaffari (Category(ies): United States; added by 5.123.214.51 at 2019-11-14 21:40:37, epoch 1573767637) --Trigonidiida (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 15:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

New RfA - acagastya - LINKEdit

Hi SVTCobra

Please consider commenting.

I pinged you previously, but there was no response. This may be the last notification before the vote is closed.

Also, merry Christmas!

--Gryllida (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 07:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 08:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 22:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 05:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 04:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 05:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 12:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 10:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Edit

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SVTCobra&oldid=4556504"