Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010/January

This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.

INDECT, evidence

As those who're on scoop or follow the wikinews-l mailing list will know, I've submitted a set of questions for Drew Harris, head of Project INDECT's ethics board. I've uploaded the following images to accompany the article when it's finally published.

Comments? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports records

I'm about to write a sports article, and I came across this statistic: (10-3, 3-0). I know that the first pair refers to the record (10 wins, 3 losses), but what does the second pair refer to? source Benny the mascot (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a sports report, the format (x-y, a-b) generally notates overall record and conference record, where x is the number of overall wins, y is the number of overall losses, a is the number of in-conferences wins and b is the number of in-conference losses. I believe this format is generally used in the United States more than any other place. Hope this helps. Calebrw (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I actually managed to figure it out already (see here), but even then I could write the article only after deciphering the very technical jargon sports reporters seem to like using. Benny the mascot (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Herald Tribune moves to NYTimes.com

I was just patrolling and came across Talk:Thai police to wear 'Hello Kitty' armbands as punishment and noticed the comment about the IHT website moving articles to NYTimes.com. This is going to cause problems with dead links, etc. Do we go through and fix the links up (the article I found on the NYTimes site has a different date to the one referenced in the article [1]) or do we leave as is? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has never before been any policy to try and keep source links from going stale because, well, that is an impossible task. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it's difficult. Technically, the article was written based on the IHT link, but now that has moved do we change it or leave it? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Brian is saying is that we leave it because it would be nearly impossible to stop links from going dead. Tris 10:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly believe we can periodically check every link on every article ever written and then go in hunt of replacement links then go ahead and try it. Don't expect the tiniest bit of help, though. I think I once did a similar request that looked one-of, but I'd have turned a group of them away. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is possible but in this case we know where the articles have been moved to. In any case I raised the issue here as it was raised elsewhere - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, Cool uri's don't change!. (note we have a list of links for iht at [2]. but it'd be a lot of work to change them, and probably not worth it (although in the past we did change all the whitehouse links)). People who want to see the article should use archive.org. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Changing one may seem harmless, but then if someone semiautomatically churns out 500+ editprotected requests you're on your own. Maybe we could modify {{source}} to link to a new [[WN:DEADLINK}] explainin why we don't change them and how you can track it down? This would be very short so as not to put people off trying. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is more than likely not worth the effort and it more than likely sets a precedent to keep links up to date, something which we can't possibly do - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's moot now, because they've all been transferred over to nytimes.com, with the iht.com links still working. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got any questions for PRS?

For those in the UK and this probably specifically applies to Brian, I have got an email interview with somebody from PRS. Have you got any questions you think would be interesting to be answered/you would like answered? Tris 11:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's a disambig page you've linked to there, you know. --Pi zero (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Ok. --Pi zero (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does the PRS work with musicians who are not signed to major labels, may make music available for download via their own websites or MySpace, and do not have the financial resources to protect their copyright?
How does the PRS ensure that artists outside the UK are properly compensated when their music is used within the UK, such as Thai or Chinese restaurants paying their PRS dues and exclusively using music which is from outside Europe?

I may have some others if you give me time to think. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, questions have now been sent. Both of those included and your query about 1radio has been included in another question relating to Paul Campbell's criticisms. Cheers Brian. Tris 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Bot

When did this become operational? Who is operating this? Tris 09:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is operating it. This is a MediaWiki extension we voted to have enabled. Register an account? You're immediately given a {{Howdy}}. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, must have missed the vote! Very useful, about time to. Cheers. Tris 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news. We've been waiting for this for months, glad the devs finally got around to it. Only problem is, now i'm out of one of my main sources for edit count boost calories. :-b Tempodivalse [talk] 13:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the extension's name? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one we use on StrategyWiki as well - just one issue with it; if the user is created through SUL, the extension doesn't pick them up and they still require a manual welcome. If they create an account locally, it picks them up. Oh well, it cut my welcoming seriously. Philippe (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems as though the bot welcomes all new users even if they're autocreated through SUL, per the new user log. Interesting though. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never figured out the pattern of unwelcomed accounts on StrategyWiki. There *must* be a pattern. It can't just randomly not welcome certain accounts. I mean, do they all have some weird character in them? Are they all 14 characters long? Were they all created on the 52nd second of any given minute? Does it not like accounts that weren't originally created either locally or on Wikipedia? Or non-languageofcurrentwiki accounts (English in the case of enwikinews, obviously)? Who knows. Whatever the cause, the extension isn't perfect. Gopher65_talk 02:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cause would be they are configured differently. Wikinews has $wmgNewUserMessageOnAutoCreate = true, [3] strategy does not. If strategy wants everyone welcomed, they should probably file a bug request to change the option. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]