Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/Archive/13

Webcomic Entry Proposal


Dear Wikipedia Editors, I'd like to submit my work for Wikipedia's Webcomic editors to consider. I am a freelance illustrator and writer and have been doing this comic for some time, though it has just recently been brought online. Though still on a blogspot site, I hope you might find it worthy of a listing:

My work has appeared alongside Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall, and I communicate with David Rees. My illustration portfolio and full resume and publishing history can be viewed at

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards, R. Jay Magill, Jr.

I'm not entirly sure what you're asking, but it sounds better suited for commons:. (I believe they have some cartoons there - commons:Category:Cartoons, Commons:Category:Editorial cartoons, and Commons:Category:Comics) Bawolff ☺☻  18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind that i fixed your links. Bawolff ☺☻  18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to contribute an editorial cartoon to any story here on Wikinews, or wikipedia articles. Commons may be the best upload location since many larger stories have both a wikipedia article as well as wikinews articles.

In general, we have few editorial cartoons here on wikinews since its harder to modify them collaboratively, but we are always looking for more image like content for articles (just look at all the articles we stick national flags onto). Editorial cartoons here need to avoid biasing a story. Nyarlathotep 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I struggled with an interest of introducing cartoons to Wikinews last Fall. Some of the issues I confronted:

  1. Wikinews maintains a strict policy of reporting with a “neutral point of view”. Facts are neutral, opinions are editorial. An editorial cartoon expresses a viewpoint, so it would find itself in the company of editorial news stories, which are not published here because they express a viewpoint.
  2. Because of the point above, the inclusion of a comic illustration for the story French riots continue into second week was relegated to an “External link” at the bottom of the page. Not a very satisfactory placement in my opinion.
  3. A 4-panel cartoon such as those you are engaged in might be best presented as it own headline: Kity and Piggy: Abramhoff. But how would other contributors collaborate with the content of that cartoon? Or should Wikinews create a content space for the sole purpose of cartoons, such as a new Topic category.

These are just some thoughts of mine from having travelled down this road for a brief distance. You may be interested to know that there was once a very lively debate to allow publication of editorial content on Wikinews. It was ultimately voted down. Whether cartoons, which by definition are expected to lampoon people and events, would be acceptable is another matter.-Edbrown05 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thats a shame about the French cartoon, I almost mentioned that one as a prime example of a sufficiently unbiased cartoon.  :)
A cartoon doesn't need to be totally unbiased, it only needs to be balanced within the context of the story. You just run into some "a pictures worth a thousand words" effect. I believe we'd ultimately accept editorial cartoons if we had one dedicated contributor who really tried hard to keep them neutral, and did not exert a predictable left or right bias via the cartoons. We'd start optimizing the placement and comments to balance the story. For example, you could have an editorial cartoon next to a paragraph about one POV, and an oversized text quote from a pagragraph about the other.
Anyway, Mr. Magill, your very welcome to try, but people will hold you to a higher standard of neutrality than other users. I'd also be best if the cartoons target less controversial stories. Oh, plus, people arn't going to like any cartoons with running characters, purely situational cartoons, like the French one, are far more likely to fly. Nyarlathotep 19:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its too bad the cartoons arn't happening here, but I don't see that changing any time soon. Bawolff ☺☻  23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Writing Contest


I propose that we hold a writing contest every month, or, if that's not possible, very frequently, and that different users can sponsor each contest. For example, if there was a May 2006 contest, Sobar could sponsor that contest and maintain the list of judges and contestants and prizes and in June 2006, for example, international sponsors it, and so on. I don't understand why the writing contest has to be held by Wikimedia Commons, why can't Wikinews operate and have its own writing contest? Sobar 13:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC Chat


What's with the IRC Chat? I find it extremely hard to use, and I can't understand how it works. I propose that we put a page somewhere that explains how to use IRC. Or is there already one that exists? If there is one already, I can't find it. Sobar 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews merchandise


I just updated the Wikipedia merchandise shop and noticed something shocking; no Wikinews shop. So I created one. For items that have two sides, it has the Wikinews logo on front and CITIZEN JOURNALIST with the Wikinews url on back. Please add any suggestions and artwork here: meta:Fundraising ideas/Cafe Press --Maveric149 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine has some great ads. Some of them could be adapted me thinks. Bawolff ☺☻  03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mav! That's awesome. I've been meaning to do something about that. I want a Wikinews mug! --Chiacomo (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hee hee. I love my new Wikinews mug and tshirt. :-) -- IlyaHaykinson 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign


I suggest redesigning the main page. First of all the current main page is cluttered and rather unorganized. Secondly from an aesthetic point of view the main page is quite sad and lacks the appeal of its sister Wikiprojects such as Wikipedia. In addition I believe a redesign of the main page could have a postive effect on the site as a whole. I have already created three versions myself that can be seen here. I propose creating a project to solve this dilemma. Yorktown1776 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed on the main page talk page. Be warned, Lots of people have tried, and lots have failed. see Category:Sandbox. Bawolff ☺☻  05:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikinews and Participation in Survey on Collaborative News Models



I've tried contacting several people at Wikinews and it was recommended at one point that this might be the best way to seek advice and feedback.

I'm a graduate student in the Kennedy School at Harvard. My masters projects seeks to clarify the landscape of emerging collaborative news models. In particular, I wish to get a better understanding of why people use collaborative sites like Wikinews and how they are valued. To facilitate this, I've designed a short 5 minute online survey. It is basically very self-running once distributed. I was hoping that Wikinews would be willing to take part by posting a link to the survey for members of the Wikinews community to respond. Hopefully the findings will be interesting and useful for everyone working on new/existing endeavors.

Here is a sample of the survey (which I am open to adjusting based on any feedback),

<a href="">Click here to take Wikinews survey</a>



Contact: or

I noticed that some people have responded to the survey. Thanks! I was hoping for recommendations on where else (more prominently on the site) I might be able to post this survey to get as much participation from the Wikinews community as possible.
To feature it more prominatly we could put a link at mediawiki:Sitenotice (but thats a little spammy), front page (spammy) set as topic on irc channel or put in Portal:Article Collaboration (more people probally see it here the would there though). However we have to think about the issue of is this spam before posting it to anywhere but here.
Some sugestions (by question)
  1. Where do people come
    1. what does Check website regularly If that means why you keep coming back(which i assume), question is worded badly, If it means how you found it then that just doesn't make sense.
    2. Should have option for from wikimedia site as we ride on wikipedia's sucess. the majority of our editors come from the sisterlink template at the bottom of wikipedia, or the related article template. (or possibly in other Vast hundreds of wikimedia sites, but thats more rare
  2. Homepage
    1. which homepage - or
  3. what you do
    1. assumes people are readers, some editors just read developing stories to get them off the ground.
  4. What you use
    1. Looks great
  5. What you like
    1. A little annoying to fill out as I change my mind half way through, but thats minnor and can't be avoided
    2. first choice (Public/Citizen first person perspectives) vs WN:NPOV?
  6. Cred
    1. Good
  7. Website interface
    1. doesn't say how much. also doesn't take into acount other skins and other interfaces (see Category:Sandbox and the skin tab of special:prefrences)
  8. Participate
    1. Comments are kinda against policy (except in user ns), but people do anyways and is really only enforced if it gets out of hand, or if someone who is strongly against comments complains/shows up.
  9. participate - why not
    1. great
  10. friends
    1. Seems like somethings missing, but not sure what, a little vauge perhaps, but pretty good.
  11. visit
    1. good
  12. Age
    1. some people may not whish to disclose their age

Next part

  1. motovation
    1. Add something like entertainment, like helping, bored etc. People often contributate just for thoose reasons. but you've got other so that works anyway
rest is good

Bawolff ☺☻  00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Welcome


I'm thinking we could create a lively,colorful welcome page from the community at large to send to every new user. Something we create that portrays an upbeat and fun atmosphere? You know,baloons,smiles,cake...maybe it could be a collage with each regular contrib.adding an image? something to just start them off with a smile and a chuckle? Just an idea. Neutralizer 16:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Bawolff ☺☻  00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glossy Advertisements


I have no skill with graphical arts. I've rerely even been inside a journalism department. But, I've been in many math departments, and one thing dominates the department notice boards and doors of faculty:


These are usually for conferences or for programs for students.

We need an looking glossy flyers to snail mail to journalism professors, university journalism departments, and university news papers, as well as more easily printable flyers.

I'm not sure exactly how conferences handle it, but I suspect the procedure would go vaguely like:

  1. Design the flyer, post it on wikinews, and post instructions on glossy printing,
  2. Determine the best method for one mass mailing in associated people in each of the U.K., U.S., and Australia, and
  3. Email a message with a flyer link to the list, telling them that we'd be happy to snail mail them a glossy copy if they're interested in posting it.

Thoughts? Nyarlathotep 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine has an add proposal that could tie in to this. Bawolff ☺☻  00:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cease article provision for articles concerning Wikimedia


We have became excessive in our coverage of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just recently, a Washington Post article coined us as "the affiliated news site about Wikipedia". Also, we have published a number of articles to deal with Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, such to a degree that it will not be long before more to view Wikinews as the Washington Post has above. In order to disclaim any more untrue statements, and to show that we do not at all show any favoritism, I am proposing a one-month cease-article provision for all articles concerning Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation projects. This would include all articles concerning, or in any way associated with, the Wikipedia or Wikimedia names. This is a serious issue that has came up. It's only one month guys, we can handle it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- good idea, I fully support, but what if something really big comes up? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but also share brian new Zealand's conerns. Bawolff ☺☻  23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case that "something really big comes up" (although, it has been very, extremely rare before), the provision could be lifted by a consensus poll. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Bawolff ☺☻  00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bawolff, but will it be an publish now, poll later, or poll first....00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can't be trusted to objectively judge the significance of wikipedia news, as its too close to home, but I'm not sure this is the best way to handle it. We just need to keep wikipedia articles from appearing on the front page, either via categories or via publishing after the stories dateline would place it off the main page. Maybe we can just go modify the DPLs for the main page? Oh, the most important thing is to ban the wikipedia stories from the leads. Nyarlathotep 04:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like adding Category:No publish would do it. Nyarlathotep 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDF email


I thought it would be nice to have some sort of subscription service to the daily PDF delivered by email. Not the RSS feed but the actual PDF file emailed.

That most l;ikely possible I'll look into it. (IF I don't I probally forgotten, remind me) Bawolff ☺☻  23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site notice of the week


I'd like to propose that we have a special Wikinews:Site notice of the week, nominated through a consensus process, to highlight important policies, discussions, collaborations, contests, votes, and so forth. Please see the page for discussion. If you agree with this proposal, simply start adding your nominations, comments etc. to the page, and we'll gradually phase it in if there are no objections.--Eloquence 04:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Good day all....

I am a big fan of a radio show, out of San Francisco. It is called "Philosophy Talk". It comes out of KALW, 91.7fm, live, Tuesdays, noon to 1pm.

It is hosted by the current and former heads of the Phil. Dept. at Stanford, Ken Taylor, and John Perry.

They do the show foe zero monetary compensation,...only for the pleasure of increasing public interest in this topic.

Their past shows are archived on their website,

I want to submit, in the best form, an entry for Wikipedia... I have not done this before, and would gladly accept any help in doing so.

Comments most appreciated, to me:

Hi, This is kinda the wrong place to ask, we're a sister project of wikipedia that works on news. Try perhaps browsing through help:Contents (at wikipedia). If you already have an article started, you can list it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you still need help you may have some luck by asking at the wikipedia IRC channel (#Wikipedia-bootcamp at (requires special IRC software. for a version that doesn't see [1]) or Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Bawolff ☺☻  00:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request an interview


We seem to regularly get new users creating articles about some event that they themselves are a part. Obviously we cannot allow people to write the news when they are the news. Unfortunately in the past we haven't managed these people very well, and most have gone elsewhere. So, it gives me mild pleasure to announce the Request an interview page, where non-Wikinewsies (or even Wikinewsies in some circumstances) can make a statement about some news event in which they are involved, and request to be interviewed by the Wikinews community. Whaddayathink? - Borofkin 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would also be nice for people to have the option of "Requesting an interview" via email - so they can make contact with the community without having to edit the wiki at all. Requests received via email would be placed on Request an interview for discussion by the community. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we could do this? - Borofkin 01:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it'd be good if interviews could occur either via IRC or email. In both cases, I'm sure existing delays would give wiki-only contributors a chance to post questions before the interview. As for email, it might be best is the wiki-email interface person wasn't always getting into fights with other contributors, you could do it for example. Nyarlathotep 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds excellent actually. being an annoying negative person who sees bad in everything for a moment: Only problem may be is self-promotion, people get interviews about an event that is absolutly un news worthy. (I'm selling candy as a conner store: can I be intervied). Bawolff ☺☻  04:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember a Wikinews contributor has to decide that the requestee is interview-worthy, and then put in the effort to make the interview happen. Making a request to be interviewed doesn't mean they will be interviewed. - Borofkin 07:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd probably work. We'd get a lot of press release junkies I'm sure but a few pointed questions will weed them out fairly quickly. I wouldn't mind having a few of the requests sent my way. --Sfullenwider 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Neutralizer 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, Excellent idea. Bawolff ☺☻  20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion section


What does every decent newspaper have? An Editorial and Opinion pieces. Why not have them on WikiNews? It could be done pretty easily, all it needs is a seperate section on the front page (so it doesn't get mistaken as a news story), a portal and some checking to make sure it is not defamatory. -- 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WE don't mostly for political reasons. The wikimedia foundation under no circumstance (to my understanding) will let us put anything in the main name space that isn't objective. You can write an editorial in your own user-space. However its unlikely anyone will ever see it. (for example: User:Solve et Coagula/No Chernobyl in Iran!!!. Bawolff ☺☻  02:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are for opinions; Wikinews is for news :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User space editorial template thingy


Thinking about what said, Maybe we should put a template on Editorials along the lines of:


This is an editorial. Users are allowed to rant in their own user space, as long as they don't offend people, and their not using us as a web host (Their also contributing to the site as a whole). The opinions here are not neccesarily representitive of Wikinews, its contributors or the Wikimedia foundation. If this article offends you are makes you mad, please see WN:DR, and it will most likely be deleted.

With some scary picture, and a category so people can actually see these articles as some of them are intreasting once and a while. - perhaps a portal:viewpoints or portal:opinions. The portal would contain only a DPL nothing else, and these articles would never make it to anywhere visible beyond that.

Bawolff heres the sounds of millions of wikinewsies everywhere opposing him!

Bawolff ☺☻  03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bawolff heres the sounds of millions of wikinewsies everywhere applauding him!

ReporterFromAfar3136 02:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) clapclapclapclap (i couldn't find any clapping sound files) Great idea! Put it in the user namespace, and than link to it on a portal. There. Besides, this is the only kind of wiki that even remotely needs anything like this. We're an exception. (I hope).[reply]

Remove the wikinews invitation to the general public


Unfortunately, I think this part of the wikinews invitation must be changed. "What we want from YOU! We want you to write articles for Wikinews on topics that:

You find interesting: If it's of interest to you, it will be interesting to many other people! You feel aren't getting adequate coverage: Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten or isn't getting enough attention in the rest of the press? Here's your chance to tell the world! Are important to you: The news you write can be about a global event or what's happening in your local town — we don't mind!"

The invitation is simply misleading. It lures complete wiki novices like I was into the site where we are met with baffling tags; hostility and an array of norms and mores which would take a university course to be prepared for. Just today, after all my time, I found out that to revert a revert is considered aggressive whereas the initial revert is not.

  • When one tries to write a story that; "You find interesting: If it's of interest to you, it will be interesting to many other people!" e.g. [2] it might be summarily thrown into your user page or a milder version [3] might be tagged with a tag that will never be removed no matter what. The NotNews tag itself is diametrically opposed to this part of the invitation.
  • When one tries to write a story about an issue "that has been forgotten";

such as the Prescott Bush support of Hitler and the nazis, even withcurrent sources; it's met with deletion.

This long gone fantastic contributor addressed this issue many months ago; but he was chased away by the censorship.

In summary, unless we are collectively willing to stand by our invitation...particularly the words; "We want you to write articles for Wikinews on topics that: You find interesting"; and kill the notnews tag as well as stop the overcontrolling of subject matter; then the invitation needs to be changed drastically, I think. Neutralizer 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the article is about a current event and is NPOV I don't support the use of the notnews tag. I'll champion the newsworthiness of articles about dead turkeys and chess tournaments 'til the cows come home so long as they are written in a news style and conform to the NPOV requirements... The notnews tag, generally, should be used only for old news (we don't write about past events, we write about current events), encyclopedia articles, and editorials... --Chiacomo (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does "Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten" survive with Chiacomo's "old news" taboo? Neutralizer 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's referring to a current news event that's not being covered -- not past events. If you can suggest some language to clarify that point, please do! It is a bit vague and if it doesn't appear to jive with other policy/guideline pages, it should be fixed. We don't want to confuse people. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense; "forgotten" by definition implies past events. I don't want to confuse people; that's why I say either the "notnews" tag should go or the broad welcoming invitation. To leave both in place is doublespeak. Neutralizer 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understood exactly what it meant -- but, as you point out, it may be confusing to people. How could that section be worded better? "Do you know of a current event that is not receiving adequate coverage?" Maybe that would be better. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiacomo; this; "We want you to write articles for Wikinews on topics that: You find interesting"; is the primary victim of the notnews tag. Please address this, if you don't mind. Neutralizer 23:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need to be more accepting of more local stories. However it should also mention something like we require your story confirms to our policy of neutrality. However we need to gaurd against stuff like spam. Bob's unheard of software company is now offering their clone of microsoft word (almost like notepad but less features) for 20% off. IMO that type of article is unacceptable. Bawolff ☺☻  00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agreed; the project got along for years before the "notnews" tag and I see that tag as being exactly what DV predicted; a facilitator of ill will. It is simply not needed and contrary to the entire concept of a peaceful locale. We don't need it and it sucks (I think it does).Neutralizer 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer you are aware that Wikinews has only been around for ~18 months right? I think the notnews tag in its current form is bad. We should try to split the tag into several parts, a oldnews, spam and maybe a nonsense tag. The notnews tag does offten get abused, and is used to attack prefectly vaild stories by people who only have a vague understanding of how Wikinews works --Cspurrier 01:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ANother problem, is do we want to have the localast of articles - Grandma has barbecque, ten people of imediate family show. Maybe we should reword nonews in addition to spliting Bawolff ☺☻  05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think even the Grandma barbecue story is valid news on a narrow basis which portals by region are meant to address. The categories 'Local only' and 'Local news' can tuck these stories away in the future. I very much do like the 'Local news' category, as opposed to the other one. -Edbrown05 08:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My interest in World news is what originally drew me to this site. I personally haven't hesitated to get involved with news stories about world topics, but I do believe there are many people who do. These same "newsies" would possibly not hesitate to report on a local level. The tools are in place now for Wikinews to support that. -Edbrown05 09:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all news. The 'notnews' tag should be stuck on a dart board because it's not actionable. -Edbrown05 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the "invitation" page about this time last year, and I think it's stood the test of time well. An example of an "issue that has been forgetten" would be the fate of the six people who had a reaction to a drugs trial in London. Although it was all over the UK media at the time, it's no longer getting much coverage, although there are still new developments which would qualify for an article as a "current event" (as per our Wikinews:Content guide). Another example would be the publication of the official report on an air crash - the real reason for airliner crashes rarely gets reported in the mainstream media. Hope that clears things up. Dan100 (Talk)

Removal of the NotNews tag


Seems like nobody likes it the way it is; I will remove it and then those who want something similar can develop something to replace it. Neutralizer 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; since there are no objections and after discussions re; the removal of the anglo-american policy it seems it is ok for an editor to change a policy page and put a note here; so that is what I'll do now. I will now remove the not-news tag. Neutralizer 13:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh... The not news tag is not a policy.. it's a tag. Please don't remove stuff that others may use. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the not news tag is used to tag articles which have been mistakenly posted to Wikinews -- classified ads, encyclopedia articles, etc... Stuff that's not actually about a current event. A prime example is the article about the first Father's Day Service at Central United Methodist Church -- that's an excellent article, but it's not news. I think I may have tagged it not news. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your are a bit speedy, my friend, i am using that tag, and i am not alone to do that.
if you don't like that tag, don't use it, no problemo.
it hurt noone to let it exists ?
(you speak to yourself, be aware !)
i do not understand very well your action here. I am not anglo-american, it's the problem i think ! (smile) Jacques Divol 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggust waiting a bit more time than what you did wait, Neutralizer. Removing a tag for no other reason but you don't like it - and maybe a few others done, is not the appropiate way to go about things. Start a discussion here, let it go for awhile - or start it on the talk page. Something. Lyellin 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removal depends on many factors, including who placed the tag. If MrM places a tgag, you can almost count on him not comming back until the article is replublished. OTOH, if Amgine places a tag, you might not seem him or you just might find him attempting OR to support/oppose it. It all depends, let editors judge for themselves, baced on the actioons of other editors. Of course, the best policy is always to only tag after 1RR has been violated, and hence a celar conflict exists, but you also shouldn't impose that on people. Nyarlathotep 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion in the topic directly above which seems to indicate no one is happy with the notnews tag. Some people like Ed and I said to get rid of it; others say it should be changed. Jacques Divol seems to make use of it so I will put it back into the flag grouping. Neutralizer 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks ! Jacques Divol 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Page Edits


I propose that any edits to policies be announced here under the proposal section so that important changes don't slip through without much community notice or the opportunity for discussion. Neutralizer 02:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not necissary, you could just watchlist the ones which aren't proposed policies if you like. You shouldn't force people to talk about thing until after a conflict arises. For example, if you tag an article as POV, your declaring a conflict, and must explain it. But if you just make the edits yourself, no conflict is assumed until someone reverts you. Nyarlathotep 14:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All policies are proposed to my knowladge. Bawolff ☺☻  23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy reflects community practice - changing policies to try and alter the behaviour of the community is by-and-large futile. So editing policies to reflect current practice shouldn't need consultation and can just be done, but if you want to change policy away from what actually happens on the site, forget it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have category pages show entries sortable by date


Maybe someone else has already brought that up. As far as I understand, the "category" feature is used to group entries together, right? I went to a random news article (this one) and then clicked on one of the categories that article is placed in, "Category:Thailand". Currently there are 49 pages in that category, and they are sorted by alphabet. I can imagine easily that in 2 years, most of those categories will have 500+ articles in them, and most of them are "old news", and it will be very difficult to see just the latest ones. By having the category sortable by date, and making this the default in this case, the problem could be averted. Puck 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also have portal:thailand. see also bugzilla:1289. also look at Google/date Bawolff ☺☻  03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a category page is set up properly, it should have the portal page transcluded (e.g. {{Portal:Thailand}}). This give the latest news at the top and the old A-Z list below - the best for usability. Search is your best friend though :-). Dan100 (Talk) 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine disagrees with you. I'm honestly in the middle on that debate, but slightly leaning towards transclude. Bawolff ☺☻  17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I'm not around here much any more, and I used to do a lot of the looking after for Wikinews:Contents, which I think is quite a useful page. If someone who is more familiar with Wikinews's current state could check that page and update it as needed, that would be great! Dan100 (Talk) 10:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spread Wikinews!


Although our growth hasn't been bad, I want to remind people of Wikinews:Spread Wikinews - spread the word! Dan100 (Talk) 10:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A way I could lend a hand?


As a result of my recent article-writing spree, I have been on many news websites (BBC, CNN etc.) and I've noticed they have special banners or logos for recurring news themes (bird flu, the Iraq war and so on). So it got me thinking - if you guys "upstairs" were interested, I could create some similar graphics for Wikinews and place them somewhere accessible (in a category in the Commons or somewhere similar), or they could be added with a tag or something like that. I'm not really sure about how it could be implemented, but I think this simple visual tool could provide a uniform and professional look to pieces of news that, when they keep recurring, get old over time. The closest thing Wikinews has at the moment is the infobox, which is a feature of articles of similar nature (I cite the example of the bird-flu box). A good idea, or is my head too far up in the clouds. Anyway, great job with Wikinews, guys. --Martin Leng 17:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving several positive replies to this proposal, I have implemented a "phase one" of the special banners. There are five of them just now, which I hope you will use in articles which are of the common news themes in Wikinews. Any suggestions for future graphics are more tha welcome on my Talk page. The initial images are under Wikinews (see "Article Theme Tags") [4] in the Commons. —Martin Leng 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, before anything, you'ld have a look to infoboxes, for exemple : {{Avian Flu infobox}} Jacques Divol 14:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think there's a list somewhere
the list is here : Infoboxes list]
Jacques Divol 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After considerable messing around, I have altered the image to .png format, which makes the images look sharper among other things. Although I must point out, the images have an optimum size of 150px - any larger and it crowds the article, any smaller and it is often difficult to make out. Remember this when adding them to articles. Also, in response to Jacques' comment, I don't quite get your drift regarding infoboxes. Do you mean create images based on infobox categories? —Martin Leng 15:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terrorism image you've done may be a problem. Please refer to the archived discussion over the similarly named category.
As to infoboxes, I think Jacques Divol is referring to these as being our form of article decoration which can include a graphic, albeit a smaller one. The full list of infoboxes is at WN:IB, and from a quick look there we could do with a new graphic in the climate change one. There was some debate around that one, and many of the stories that report on climate change are more severe weather and not just simple temperature increases. I'm crap at graphics, but I could picture a globe with various weather wrapped around it and the text "Climate Change" going from blue to red to more subtly indicate temperature change. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you're right Brian, I think infoboxes are more usefull than simple image. As image are easily inserted into infoboxes, it's good.
There's many problem with just images, neutrality, ... remember Danish problem, it's a pitt easy to fall into. Jacques Divol 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the way you decode image is not at all universal for all countries and cultures. Something you thing neutral and common, could be very offensive for others. Jacques Divol 15:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave the final decision up to you guys. Presumably there isn't a policy governing where images are positioned on a page, so I don't mind where people put them. They are in the public domain, of course! Also, regarding the "terrorism" image, is there a suitable (and more mutually agreeable) alternative? Or is it for the recycle bin? —Martin Leng 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to offer civil unrest as an alternative, but let's give it time to see what opinions other people have. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil unrest is quite good, and it puts it into perspective. I can see now why terrorism was a problem... far too open to misinterpretation. Although I agree, let's wait and see other ideas. My pitch is World in Crisis, or is that too dramatic? —Martin Leng 17:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see template:issues. Bawolff ☺☻  01:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that :-). Template:issues, infoboxes and this idea should probably all be combined together into one system to make them easier for editors to use. Dan100 (Talk) 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, In the news


A question has been posted at Wikipedia:Talk:Main_Page#Wikinews_Links regarding linking news items that are in the WP In the news section to any corresponding article here. I'm brand new here so I don't know if this has been addressed before but it does seem like a good idea and would provide additional visibity to this project. The very notion of that linkage has gotten me here for the first time! --hydnjo talk 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the origina post by me:

Why do the Wikinews stories not have direct links to those stories? Clicking the Wikinews link takes you to the list of stories and I never seem to be able to find the story I am looking for. I think the bullet should link directly to the Wikinews story. Whaddaythink? Cyferx 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the logical idea that someone gets from that section is that you can read the news you are interested by clicking somewhere in that blurb, but there is nowhere to get to that story. When you go to the main pager of Wikinews, you almost never can find the article you are interested.

I propose that the bullet should be the link to the story.

Cyferx 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea! The problem is that Wikipedia does not let Wikinews edit their template, nor do they link to Wikinews (it wouldn't really be possible to link the button in a bulleted list, but there are other possibilities of something similar). You might propose this at w:Template talk:In the news. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google toolbar button proposal


add google tool bar
Maybe someone should make a Wikinews Google toolbar button with an RSS feed of today's news on the little checkmark beside it. They're easy to create, see and . Cheers, w:user:unforgettableid 05:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i put some xml, edit it Jacques Divol 08:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(xml at meta → Meta:Wikinews/Google button)

and what about dashboard's Apple widget like : ??? Jacques Divol 08:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good idea! Only issue I have is:

This document describes how to make custom buttons. Custom buttons currently work only on Internet Explorer.
In process of editing xml. Bawolff ☺☻  22:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
putting locale pt-BR as pt,zh-TW as zh zh-CN as zh. see chart for reason. Bawolff ☺☻  22:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add (appears the thing only takes the first argument. not sure how to get around. perhaps (however the spam filter doesn't like tinyurl. so that won't work) - Got it to work (: Spam filter won't let me post link. see IRC topic at #wikinews. (Not sure if ? and & are excaped properly (How do you put a uri inside a quary argument of a uri. do you escape with %xx do you put the first argument of the embeded uri as a ? or &). Would test but hate IE Bawolff ☺☻  23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]


It Works! (see Wikinews:Syndication)

Adding multiple searches


Would it be possible to add multiple search choices in the search boxes? It would be nice to search the other wikipedia websites from any one of them. ie. Being able to choose if you want to search Wikipedia from Wikinews.

I'm not sure if I understand you. Do you mean like this but instead of languages, Any of these wikimedia projects? p.s. please sign your coments (as four tides (~) at the end like: ~~~~ Bawolff ☺☻  00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of the World - prepared article


I've had a go at an obituary for Planet Earth in the "prepared stories":

Grateful for any assistance, I am new to wikinews.


Its been deleted as nonsense. moving to Wikinews:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/World ends. Bawolff ☺☻  00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already moved. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Establish a Committee for Retaining and not "turning off" contributors


I was challenged to head up a committee to;

  • A; Examine why we have been losing many good contributors with many going away with a bad taste in their mouths; e.g.[5][6][7][8]


  • B; Make proposals as to how we can get some of the good ones back and prevent it from happening so often.

I am looking for 4 good men(or women) to join me on this committee. No volunteers will be turned away; first 4 gets the job. Please sign up right here. Neutralizer 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have had some more encouragement to move ahead with this idea as a "committee of 1" until volunteers come forward.

To get things rolling, I will be contacting contributors who have quit and ask them;

"What needs to change at Wikinews in order for you to come back?"

Please lmk here or by email names of any and all who you would like to see contacted. After I receive a bunch of replys I will set up a policy proposal page for whatever suggestions they have for us. Neutralizer 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikinews:Stop Loss --Deprifry|+T+ 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why this site hasn't soared. It is far more important than a stupid encylopedia. What's wrong? -Edbrown05 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deprify; that's a good tool. MrM, useless or useful has yet to be seen; I'm hoping for the best. But as a former business person, if I can be involved in bringing back even 2 good contributors; then I have done more for the project than anything I could do by myself. That's just simple math. Neutralizer 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International collaboration on FIFA World Cup 2006


I wonder if there would be any interests in a collaboration on FIFA World Cup 2006. We've started a portal on Swedish Wikinews to cover the news reporting that already has started. Spanish Wikinews also has a portal. If you're interested, please let me know and if you don't mind, I will translate articles into english and put them somewhere here on en:wikinews under the develop tag. In that case, please be prepared for language adjustments ;). //StefanB sv 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely. Translated articles are always welcome. I'll probably be in Cologne (and maybe Frankfurt) for some of the games (not really in the stadium just in the cities) so while I will not be able to take shots of the games I should at least get some good crowd pictures. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for an injunction for Mrmiscellanious and Neutralizer


In light of the recent events involving Neutralizer and Mrmiscellanious, I have come up with a solution that should greatly reduce, if not cease, the number of conflicts present on Wikinews. As I have observed, Mrmiscellanious and Neutralizer have differing political viewpoints. This can lead to different arguments, particularly their definitions of a neutral point of view. Whenever the two get involved in a political article, this leads to conflict. Even when one gets involved in a political article, the other comes in and attempts to "fix" the article. This is a minor example of what I am referring to, and this is a more "intense" example.

That is why I propose an injunction that would ban Neutralizer and Mrmiscellanious from editing any articles relating to politics. "Political articles" are to be defined as any article that can be categorized with Category:Politics and conflicts, disputedly or not. Any edits made by either party, assuming the acceptance of this injunction, are to be reverted on the spot. In the event of repeated violations of the injunction, blocks are to be applied in compliance with the repeated violation blocking guidelines illustrated at Wikinews:Blocking policy. If it appears that one party consistently violates the injunction, further action may be taken, including a proposal to revoke editing privileges from that party. Hopefully, that will not happen. Please consider this policy for the future of Wikinews.

THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 20:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a time limit for this injunction? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is possibly useful to provide a short-term cooling off period after a serious dispute, however it couldn't be for more than a day or two, and there would need to be broad agreement that it should be put in place. Remember also that there are other dispute resolution procedures that are rarely followed during flare-ups between these users. I would like to see both users making more use of the steps on WN:DISPUTE each time a conflict begins, especially Step three: Ask the community for help, and Step four: A nice cup of tea and a sit down. - Borofkin 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A time limit indeed sounds like a good idea. Which length is appropriate, however, I am not sure. By the way, when transcribing this into policy, the wording doesn't have to be as wordy; I just wanted to heavily describe the situation so that it wouldn't be confusing. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 00:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MrM/Neutralizer disputes often result in a more NPOV story, therefore helping Wikinews. If either party would like to voluntarily except an injunction like this to avoid further conflict, good for them, but it should not be forced on them --Cspurrier 00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems overbroad. To my mind, the only real difficulty is when their conflict harms others. Who cares if they fight over an article where they are the only contributors?

If an editor feels conflicts involving Neutralizer and Mrmiscellanious are disruptiing the développement of an article, they may request that both Neutralizer and Mrmiscellanious cease editing the article, and possibly its talk page, for 24 hours. Such requests should be made both on WN:ALERT and the atop of the articles talk page. While the request has no authority itself, neutral admins are encouraged to (a) watch future actions by Neutralizer and Mrmiscellanious, and (b) broadly interpret violations of etiquette, disruption, etc.

In other words, if you ask them both to get out, then they need to either calm down or get out of the article. Hmm Nyarlathotep 11:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Code of Conduct


Following the (somewhat) recent wheel war, I proposed a code of conduct for Administrators be codified as a recommendation to be included on the WN:A page. At this time, I'd like to formally propose this on the water cooler to become a new section of WN:A. Of course, this is also an invitation to add or correct items currently on the page, as well. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Bawolff ☺☻  00:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do like it, but Im not sure about the wording of 6, your obviously free to block admins for violating 3RR with admin powers, disruptively using admin powers, etc. Now 6 doesnt say you cant block for those reasons, but there is clearly a grey area here. So it might be best to just not legislate at all. OTOH, 6 is the clause specifically desigend to prevent wheel wars. I see several more objective alternatives:
  1. admins who block other admins for actions with admin powers must recuse themselves for the same period of time.
  2. admins should follow 1RR with admin powers, and can be blocked for violating 2RR. (or simillar)
Anywho Nyarlathotep 11:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes time for MrM's reconfirmation


Seeing as he is a very controversial figure, at the end of his RFA, I would like to request that every user who has voted would go through a CheckUser. All sockpuppet votes (and the votes made by their puppeteers) would be crossed out. How does that sound? —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 11:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's in line with our CheckUser policies. My suggestion would be to have an uninvolved, uninterested admin, bureaucrat, or steward supervise the elections, and just sort of police the votes. For that matter, have the vote be only established users over a certain number of edits/months. Ral315 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot do the CheckUser because of the policies (are we talking about Wikinews-specific policy or Wikimedia-wide policy), then I suppose we can limit voting to people who have been around for at least two months and have at least 400 edits. That's quite the minimal requirement, wouldn't you say? —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA should run "as normal". If a bureaucrat has suspicions about voters, they can, of course, find someone to CheckUser any suspicious accounts. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Nuetralizer is the only regular who might believe various people are socks/meats of other people, right? But if you want to check user any newbies who vote, sure, seems fine to me. Nyarlathotep 07:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a bureaucrat, but generally I think, bureaucrats discount votes from very new contributors... --Chiacomo (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy is wikimedia wide. But I don't see a problem if the beurocrats only mention it if it is a sockpuppet (but then again I havn't read the policy, so I don't know. thats just me thinking from a logical point of view). Talking about checkuser. do we have two local checkuser people. I remember talks of getting them, but I don't think they amounted to anything. Bawolff ☺☻  01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom has not selected any checkusers -- if a bureaucrat wanted to checkuser a voter they'd have to ask a steward (or perhaps a developer). --Chiacomo (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I was some how under the impression that meta or wikipedia check users could act as check users for us? Nyarlathotep 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors with the checkuser permission cannot (unless they are also stewards). As I understand it, Stewards have the technical ability and the authority (permission) to fulfill checkuser requests for projects that have no native checkusers. Developers have the technical ability (but not necessarily the authority) to fulfill checkuser requests. It appears that Developers have become reluctant to conduct checkusers in the last few months. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Wikinews newsbriefs


I´ve got a "problem" - or actually two - concerning Audio Wikinews newsbriefs, which I´d like to discuss with others, to get their ideas, and - hence - make up my own mind about it.

a) In recent days I read the newsbriefs and - of course - it always happens, that news are published, after - or whilst - I´ve read and published newsbriefs. With which I´ve dealt so far like this: When I read the news - I don´t read the news, which were published after my newsbriefs recording of the previous day.

Partly I don´t feel well with that, because these news are also available on, and should - on that account - be presented to the people who are listening to newsbriefs, and therefore they should be published in the audio newsbriefs. But partly I think, those were yesterdays news. (This thinking is influenced by a well-known saying in Germany, which goes like this: "Nothing is LESS interesting than yesterdays newspaper.")

Concerning this, an additional "prob" for me is that I read "news OF THE day". Hence people might be astonished to hear, for example: "It´s May 17, 2006, and now you´ll hear the news from May 16, 2006." Am I to kraut-ish? Should I adopt a more "laissez-faire"-, or "easy-going"-approach? On the other hand, we have clear guidelines here, and want to provide news, as best, and as professional, as we can. And since we´ve adopted - for example - the BBC-style-guide for this project, I doubt, that the BBC would read yesterday news, unless of course a new aspect occured concerning a news-information.

b) Another point which I just handled so far like I thought it would be right: Yesterday we offered the news: Which is why I´ve read it on yesterdays newsbriefs. Today the article was again on the agenda. But the core info hasn´t changed. The leading sentences of the article were unchainged, hence there was not very much "new news" involved. On account of this I thought: "You´ve read it yesterday. Why read it again today? Everyone who has heard the newsbriefs yesterday, must be quite surprised to hear a 24-hours-old news again." Which is why I did not enclosed it in todays newsbriefs.

So, what do you think about my questions?

a) Should I read the news from yesterday in todays news, because they weren´t (audio-speaking) published so far?

b) Is it ok to NOT read news, which were discussed by the "writing contributers", even though they came to the conclusion to re-publish them on the next day?

I would appreciate it to read comments from "around the planet".


Gumboyaya 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good question, I really don't know what would sound the best. Sorry I can't really offer an opinion. You proabbly know this the best out of everyone. Go with what you think would be the better aproach.

New browsing method


Wikinews's browse system has problems: it has a poor infrastructure and is poorly designed. In order to get around, you have to understand how Wikinews works. That is a severe problem. Since Wikinews's concept is to write news now so they can be cherished in the future, it is necessary to have an easily navigated browsing system. That is why I have created User:Messedrocker/Browse - a network of pages that incorporates browsing by topic, region, and date. However, it is still under construction. Be very bold; make changes you feel are appropriate. If someone disagrees, discuss it, yadda yadda yadda. Take a look at it and let me know what you think (here or there). —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, should we change mediawiki:portal-url, or whould we wait a bit, until more people have seen it? Bawolff ☺☻  18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until we have more opinions on it. I asked someone at #wikipedia about it and she said she's going to edit it. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 18:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I´m sort of undecided. On the one hand, messedrockers version does offer an easier approach, when one is interested in special topics. But then, the one who is searching/looking must be well aware of what s/he is looking for. This is why I´m not so (very much) convinced, since I think we have to find a way, which provides an overview over what we offer, and in the same time a neat accessability to special (actuall - if I´m able to formulate this in English properly) topics. I DO think it is an improvement though. Gumboyaya 19:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone should take out: If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account. Please go to Jason's talk page. FellowWikiNews 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an account, then editing the page to remove the welcome is common. That's the first thing I did - but I retained the bit about who welcomed me. Some of the information in the welcome message is very useful. The point I think that would require change is the one concerning an alternate welcome message for IP's versus named accounts. Karen 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There's a discussion here about the style guide entry here. I propose changing the style guide to suggest the section be called "Related news". Karen 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll


Feel free to add your own suggestion and respond in any or all suggestions. You can vote for more than one. The purpose of this is to get feedback for what to put into the style guide, an attempt to keep the suggestion there in-tune with usage and current opinion. In the case of multiple suggestions being popular, they will be listed as acceptable. If there's no consensus on a suggestion, it will be listed as "has been used" in the style guide. If all are opposed, then the suggestion won't be listed. Karen 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - BBC site does something similar. I don't think it's redundant; I think it re-enforces the idea that these stories are all within the Wikinews site. Karen 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Highlights that the other articles are original content by us. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seeing as it's a straw poll and Karen seems to have at least commented on most options I'll comment on this one. The reader is already on wikinews so I feel that the wiki part is redundant, any news site is going to work to keep readers on their domain so I go for the related news option on the basis that it is our related news, there's nothing wikispecial about it. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can call them articles (per a sense of the word article - A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.), but I've always heard reporters call them stories. Karen 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • Support. I originally misread the style guideline when this proposal came up for discussion. I do like ==Related Wikinews== better than ==Related news== because it is more descriptive. But the sell aspect of ==Related Wikinews== bothers me a little because I think it bothers others. ==Related news== leaves itself open to ambiguity with ==Sources==... ahh, semantics .... leaving ==Related== <is that your final answer?> as my choice. -Edbrown05 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



With only two people active here and both in agreement, I feel there's not enough consensus for me to change the style guide. One might believe that once a story is dated, it's no longer news - so wouldn't qualify for "Related news", but does qualify as a "Related story". However, the style guide specifices "Related stories", which seems overly boastful when there's only one story listed. The advantage of "news" is that it is both singular and plural.

Other suggestions, "Previously related news" and "Related Wikinews", seem more contrived. "Previously related news" seems too easily confused with "Previously-related news", but "Related Wikinews" has the advantage of suggesting that once a story is published without being deleted, it's "Wikinews" for life and suggests that what's related is only within the "Wikinews" site ("Related stories" might imply that other stories elsewhere may be listed).

Of course, I can stop trying to maintain consistency between stories in this regard by keeping in mind that the style guide is only a guide; editors can do what they feel is best for this section. With that in mind, would I be wrong at any time to change the section title of any multiple list of "Related stories" to match the style guide's suggestion of using "Related stories"? Is it too much to expect that with one listing, the section would be called "Related story" until more than one entry was listed? Are there any other suggestions than the five (not counting plural versions for "article" and "story") mentioned here? Karen 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The see also usage, in this case by Divol, pops up every now and again. It does satisfy your issue of plurality and/or singularity in 'Related stories', and it satisfies my not liking "fairy tale" ring of the style guide as currently written. Trouble is, "See also" goes over like a glass of soda without the fizz. -Edbrown05 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
News ceases to be news... another suggestion, 'News background' -Edbrown05 06:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see the 'old news stops being news' argument - 'related news' would be fine for me. You could perhaps add a guideline that only related news from within the last year (or news which is directly related to the story, rather than just being the same topic). I think the dates convey the 'newsiness' of these related stories well enough not to confuse people. Frankie Roberto 07:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"see also" sounds like something from Wikipedia. Bawolff entitled the section simply "Related". If there were an arbitrary time limit for entries, I don't think it would work in all cases. If a story mentions an event that took place over a year ago, (tsunami of December 2004, for example) it still seems valid to list it as related.
BBC News has two sections: "RELATED BBC LINKS" and "RELATED INTERNET LINKS". This makes me think that "Related Wikinews" is the most accurate - pointing the reader to Wikinews stories, not just any story anywhere that is related. Since the dates of the stories are listed with the links (when done properly), there shouldn't be any concern that some of the entries are "Wiki-no-longer-news" because the reader will have enough information to decide to clink on the link.
You could keep discussing this to try to reach a consensus about the "Related news" proposal, but I'll mention this option as well: Because of the objection to "Related news" and "Related stories" doesn't seem to be our best choice, I still propose changing the style guide.
Assuming "Related news" is no better than "Related stories", does anyone object to either just "Related" or "Related Wikinews" or prefer one to the other? At least we seem to agree that "Related" should be in there. Karen 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I default to using "Related news" on my stories, I think it is appropriate and I've never really seen anyone assert the style guide over it, so perhaps the style guide should be changed. As a news service it is our related news so the "Related Wikinews" option seems redundant. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to Related news, and clarified the reverse date ordering after seeing it wrong on one article. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How-many-to-one is required for consensus? While I prefer "Related news" over "Related stories", I don't consider "Related Wikinews" as redundant, nor does the BBC News consider "RELATED BBC LINKS" redundant. As a news service, their related news is clarified as being theirs; why should Wikinews assume readers will make the assumption for it and miss a self-promotional opportunity? I, at one time, thought the "Related news" link could link to the same story covered by other sites when I confused the related section with the sources section. If you still believe that it's redundant, the only suggestion left is simply "Related". So, for now, I'll just change the style guide back to say that, while keeping your reverse date ordering suggestion. Then you can continue debating for something better, or not. Karen 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is an improvement the discussion need not cease, I was of the opinion that Related news was more generally accepted, and a check of the past 2 days stories shows 4 variants with this one being used 2 times. Related stories was used once, as well as the overly redundant Related Wikinews stories. You didn't really need to come looking for consensus before making a change like this, it could have been done then highlighted. Hopefully the other minor changes I made are to the good as well. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stats for all published stories on the front page... Related news: 9 times, Related stories: 1 time, Related Wikinews: 1 time, Related Wikinews stories: 1 time, and See also: 1 time. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brian McNeil that this isn't something that should come to a policy vote unless it upsets the community. This is something along the lines of the practice of using the downstyle method of writing headlines that users will impose. The current and most widely used practice ==Related news== doesn't necessarily make it the best use, when it can leave confusion as to what exactly is ":Related". The style guide as written doesn't address that well either, not as well as ==Related Wikinews==. If it's to be a straw poll on this proposal, I vote for 'Related Wikinews'. -Edbrown05 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really ask for a vote; I intended to ask if it would be prudent to change the style guide to match the "current and most widely used practice". I suppose the wording "I propose" makes it sound like I'm asking for a vote, sorry. Because there was objection to my proposed change, I didn't make that change and more so, undid the change someone else made in the way I proposed after an objection was made here. I thought the matter was more easily decidable, but I was wrong. I feel I was right to discuss it here before just changing it to what I wanted, however.

Also, the "Stats" above is not very useful for such a small sample of the last few days and isn't going to be current unless someone keeps updating it - so don't give it much weight in this discussion. I give very little weight to any official decision-making done here to the same extent I'd give weight to any discussion around a water cooler in an office environment.

If someone wants to turn this into a straw poll, I've suggested "Related story/stories" (to be changed from "story" to "stories" when there's more than one entry) and "Related news". "Related Wikinews" seems to be an improvement, so I'd agree to that. I've disagreed with "See also" and "Related article(s)". I do not object to "Wikinews" being used to describe a single news entry as well as meaning "the free-content news source project of the Wikimedia Foundation and site that is the product of the project" because I feel "Wikinews news" would be redundant in the same way "Wikinews stories" would be. In all my years working with reporters, never once has any reporter used the term article, it's always been story. Outside the business, I've infrequently heard the term news article, but often heard the term magazine article. Of course I have regional bias - I haven't been traveling the world working with reporters.

Remember, I view the style guide as a suggestion for purposes of keeping consistency between stories, but hope that any unique circumstance is a good enough reason to allow a particular story to do things differently. I try to make edits (or leave it be) on that basis and on what I hope is my own good judgement. For this particular situation, I currently view it as "anything [within reason] goes". Karen 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I don't have strong feelings about the various options, we need to get to a clear result. If we want to be a professional site, we have to be consistent in our presentation. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty much in agreement with Deprifry here, this needs to be decided and politely enforced like the downstyle titling is. If we can manage to deal with that without conflict then once we have a decision and a reason to present when enforcing it we'll have one less little detail to worry about. Applying minor copyedit to fix things like this and title capitalisation is something people can do in their spare 5 minutes, there may be other areas of the style guide that need looked at too. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'disputed stories' and possibly 'stories in development' from Main Page


I propopse deleting the 'disputed stories' section from the right hand column of the Main Page, and possibly the 'stories in development' section too. This is because:

  • They make the page unbalanced by increasingly the vertical length.
  • The main page should be about promoting our best and newest content, not disputed content or content in development.
  • Content in development or disput can remain in that status for days, sometimes weeks, which makes for a relatively static section of the front page.
  • Removing content in development would give 'publishing' more significance and encourage people to publish as soon as the article is developed enough to be worth reading.

Any views? Frankie Roberto 09:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a word: No. I think its important to have the developing stories up there. Thats how many people find out how it works. There is some problems with vertical symetry, but its not worth killing the developing stories over. If worse comes to worse we can put a limit on how many developing stories are up there (Only the five last edited). But I'd prefer to keep it there. We've got many people who started out just by fixing developing stories (We've got many people (Like me, well actually I've been playing with WN:CT and 'pedia recently, but their are others) who only fix up developing stories. Bawolff ☺☻  05:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. What's your view on having the disputed stories on the homepage? Frankie Roberto 07:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little undecided on disputed stories. prefer keep, but possibly only list the last 5 that were edited and put a link at bottom &rarr See more. Bawolff ☺☻  19:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep from me for the 'developing stories' section. Killing the 'disputed stories' section wouldn't bother me, since it is a section linked to in Workspace, and people uninvolved to a disputed article probably aren't drawn into involvement from the section being listed on the front page. -Edbrown05 06:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see "Disputed stories" removed since they're already listed in the Workspace section as a subsection of stories in development. I'd not miss the "Developing stories" if they were also removed, but given a vote of all-or-nothing, I'd vote to remove both. Given a line-item choice, one but not the other. If the argument to keep both is that it represents the current status of all stories and encourages involvement, then I'd propose adding the "Prepared articles" section, entitling it "Prepared stories" to be consistent with the use for the other two entries, or arguing that the link to Workspace be made more prominent. Karen 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that a Main Page redesign is increasing something that should not much longer be avoided... see Eloquence idea. The technicalities of a new page are something that can't be worked out until the idea of what a new page would be is worked out. This deserves an entirely new topic proposal. -Edbrown05 08:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • disputed and developing stories must be kept, its essential to keeping many participants sane. If anything, we should merge them with the main list of finished stories, but add a seperate "crap" or "likely to never be done" section. So maybe the statuses should be "done", "finalizing" (developing), and "disputed", all showing up in the main list, with "not news", and "junk / silliness / not progressing" not showing up in the main list. Nyarlathotep 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like this idea actually - it solves most of the problems of the status quo, which is having stories that are disputed or in development stay there for ages. How difficult would it be to implement though? We'd have to reinvent the Publish/Develop categories system... Frankie Roberto 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed and developing story categories (site-wide) or sections (listings) on the main page must be kept? I'm not sure which is meant by disputed and developing stories in the first sentence above. If you mean the former, I agree. My point is, if disputed is going to appear, then other categories (prepared, for instance) should, as well. However, I don't yet see why disputed must appear on the main page. Karen 11:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Hello, I have just registered to post this. I am contributing to wikipedia a lot, so I'm not a newbie and my post is not spam, or spam was not what I had in mind.
Why don't you use skype as another hotline in order to be able to attract worldwide communication for free? I am just suggesting skype because it is the most widespread. --Alexignatiou 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skype requires an individual man the line constantly, a voicemail system can be accessed by multiple people. Several reporters list Skype contact details, but you should use the messaging system first. I had someone call me on Skype today and they were using speakers which meant the only thing I could hear was the noise from my airco being bounced back into my headphones. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International contribution among editions


Now you can be an international participant of Wikinotícias, the Portuguese Edition of Wikinews. Please, take a look here.

I would like to test this idea a little. Thank you. --Carlosar 00:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standarizing Hezbollah-Israel headlines


I've been playing with the idea on standarizing all headlines that is related to the Hezbollah-Israel conflict. Like "Day 42: Hezbollah-Israel conflict" or "Hezbollah-Israel conflict (Day 42)". Pros; No more NPOV disputes about the headlines. Gives better overview on the chronology since this is a longlasting event. Cons; Never been done before. Might look a bit stupid. :-p Thoughts?--Jambalaya 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thumbs up. Doldrums 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about standardizing the articles on the conflict, too? "Today, Israel and Hezbollah each killed a few more people. Both sides accused the other of targeting civilians, both sides denied the charges." It's not like anything ever changes. -- 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using "The 2006 Hezballah Crisis" as my lead-in on Audio Wikinews, but I would agree corrdination between all the Wikinews (Wikinews, Audio Wikinews, Print, etc.) about the title of this conflict might be helpful terinjokes User Page / Talk 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a new Newsroom?


This is my attempt to update the "hub of the Wikinews community", the Wikinews:Newsroom. I've also tried to merge all (that i think is worthwhile) of Wikinews:Workspace and Wikinews:Article collaboration, as there was quite a bit of overlap between the three. I'd welcome people's comments and suggestions on how it can be improved to a stage where it can replace the existing newsroom. or feel free to edit and improve it yourself. :) Doldrums 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I like it --Cspurrier 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I already commented from spotting this in RC I'd recommend people take a look at it, this is a really nice layout for people who know their way round the wiki. As it merges Workspace and Newsroom I think we need a version with an introduction so we keep two links down the right. So, Newsroom and Newsroom introduction. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to replace the current newsroom with it, and make redirects from the workspace and the article collaboration (which I was going to nominate for deletion someday anyways). —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. FellowWikiNews (W) 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the new Newsroom, and smoothed out as many rough edges as possible. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need help


I am attending a conference with Asha Hagi Elmi. She is an amazing person. (A variant spelling of her name is Asha Haji Elmi.)

I took a photo of her for Wikipedia, but to get a good article in Wikipedia, there should be more source material. So I want to do a story for Wikinews, an interview.

Can you help me? I have no experience at doing this... what should I ask her?

We could gather links here, or.. where? so that people can help me get background information. And could we find an expert from Wikipedia to help us, assuming we do not have a deep understanding here of Somali politics.

I intend to interview her about 24 hours from now.

--Jimbo Wales 23:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you haven't seen it, we're working on questions for you at Wikinews interview with Asha Haji Elmi. We're following up on a lot of ideas, so you will need to trim it back and pick which areas you would like to cover. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting prepared articles out of the portal space


I've noticed that prepared stories are disjointedly spread across Wikinews:Story preparation and Portal:Prepared stories. I see pages in the portal and main spaces as published (and close enough) things we'd like to show off for everyone (unlike a currently-untrue statement about Jimmy Carter), while the project space is primarily interesting for people in the community who develop articles. To that end, I'd like to see that Portal:Prepared stories gets assimilated to Wikinews:Story preparation, and all subpages of Portal:Prepared stories to become subpages of the other one. While keeping prepared articles in the portal space is better than keeping them in the main space, if I were to choose between the portal space and the project space, I'd choose the latter. How does keeping all prepared stories in the project space sound? (If no one discusses within a couple of days, I'll do the moving myself. Also, I might have not made myself perfectly clear, please ask for clarfications if you feel that's true.) —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Looks like only one prepared article was in the portal space. I moved it. Done and done. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modular newspaper: A new format for Wikinews Print


With Wikinews, we can do something that no traditional newspaper can do economically, and that no commercial news website would be interested in doing: we can allow people to print a custom newspaper.

I propose that we rethink Wikinews Print as not just a last-resort substitute for the website for people without computers, but a newspaper for people who like to read the news while eating, riding to work, or otherwise away from their Internet connections. Each reader has different interests, and with its wide variety of portals, Wikinews can acommodate everyone.

Each custom version of the newspaper would consist of a regional edition of the front section, with national and international news, plus any number of optional modular sections, each of which would probably be automatically generated -- possibly on demand -- and downloaded and printed as a separate PDF. The modular sections would include:

  • A local section for each major city. (Since Wikinews has limited local coverage, these might be weekly rather than daily, and would probably be a single sheet.)
  • A section corresponding to each portal (e.g. Games, Education, Obituaries). Portal:Sports can probably be skipped if its sub-portals (Baseball, Hockey, Olympics, etc.) are all done; the same applies to Portal:Culture and entertainment. These sections would probably not be regionalized. Underused portals might become weekly sections.

These would also be formatted much more like a print newspaper, except that they would be formatted for unfolded 8.5"x11" paper. (We might also consider larger formats.) This would mean larger headlines, a different column flow, images, and probably a serif font. It would also mean preserving wiki formatting for bulleted lists, etc.

If these were to be fully computer-generated, we'd also need some system to determine the importance of an article within its section. This would determine the size of the headline, and whether it started on the front page of the section.

People wouldn't have to print their own papers, either. Local printing companies could allow people to subscribe to the sections they wanted, on an à-la-carte pricing system. (Although the PDFs probably wouldn't have any ad space in them, the printers could still insert flyers.) They could also sell the papers through newsstands, putting each separate section on display, with possibly a fast-food-style menu above the counter. (Maybe it could even be done through vending machines!)

Newspapers aren't disappearing anytime soon. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Seahen 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, might get me to read the print edition ;) terinjokes User Page / Talk 04:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews New Zealand has a weekly print edition that is for New Zealand news only. It is here . nzgabriel 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war template


It would be useful to have a template for the Iraq war similar to the one we have for the Israel-Lebanon conflict.Crimson 17:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you swipe the code behind it, change the images, save it to a different template name, and then populate it with stories and add it to those stories (I think that's about how you go about doing it). 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotecting certain main page templates


While these templates should remain as freely-editable as possible, they do receive vandalism often. Such vandalism could harm the integrity of Wikinews (imagine the reaction to a non-Wikinewsie when they see a headline on the main page involving the 9-11 attacks and Jewish people). In fact, a person in #wikipedia asked me why the lead story had to do with "the tripling of the elephant population" (a hoax used as the main point of a giant prank on Wikipedia), and I had to explain to him that we don't protect our Main Page templates. Due to such concern, I think the following Main Page templates should be semi-protected as high-resk templates:

this is messedrocker (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okey-doke. Doldrums 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to oppose, criticize, or make suggestions to this proposal, speak now. —this is messedrocker (talk)

Done. —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any fact-checkers for OR?


there have been a couple of original reporting articles recently, which could've really used early help from an experienced wikinewsie, to fact-check and attempt to verify the story details. this wld be particularly useful, as sometimes OR is attempted by new contributors who are not very familiar with wikinews reuirements and (atleast i've found) it's somewhat difficult to get them to follow the OR procedures without appearing to be coming down too hard on them.

one such article in development right now is Londoner hit by train, Underground closed at Marble Arch Station

it would be great if a couple of experienced 'newsies come forward and list themselves as being prepared to take up such a role. we cld perhaps list them in the newsroom, for OR contributors and others to ping for assistence to fact-chck, attempt verification of OR stories. we can also rig up a couple of template messages and such, to help out. any takers? Doldrums 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to step forward as some sort of Wikinews Verification Director, seeing as I don't really do that much for articles. I already occasionally receive original reporting in my e-mail, since it makes sense that people won't want to publish it. The role of Verification Director would be to work with reporters to verify that their original research is indeed accurate, and to write to third parties on behalf of the Wikinews community. It's best if we have one person filling this role, though I'll always ask for help if I need it. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed help document


i think a document like this, possibly at Wikinews:When to publish an article would be useful to direct newbies, who sometimes quickly publish an unfinished article, to. an alternative is to make it a template message. shld a "atleast three paragraphs" rule of thumb be added to the list? Doldrums 09:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When to publish an article


You can publish an article (by replacing the {{develop}} tag with {{publish}}) after checking the following:

  1. article meets Wikinews content guidelines
  2. is written according to Wikinews style guidelines (minor issues can be ignored for the time being, if quick publication is otherwise deemed important)
  3. is fully sourced or, in the case of Original Reporting, follows the guidelines for OR
  4. is written neutrally and is reasonably "complete" (not missing significant, known aspects of the story)

These guidelines are slighly modified for breaking stories. (Note that not every article can be turned into a breaking story, just for the sake of "relaxing" the above guideleines). If u're unsure, you can ask on the article talk page, or ask an experienced wikinewsie (find them here).

proposed templates


to inform users about the do's and don'ts of editing published articles, an all-too frequent occurance, in my experience. it's be great if there's a way to pop up this notice on the editing page, for published articles, instead of being posted on the article page itself. the "recently published" is for the first 24hrs (or maybe a li't more), where the publishing itself is subject to being reviewed. afterwards, the article becomes "published". another option is to use it as template message to be posted on user talk pages, when they make such edits. i don't like this alternative, as it substitutes a "cure" for a "prvention". Doldrums 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recently published Wikinews article. Please add substantive content, dating from before the publication date to it only if the article is incomplete or not neutral without it. Otherwise, create a new article to report new developments in the story.

This is a published Wikinews article. It is considered a historical document and will be archived soon. Please do not modify it, except to fix typos, spelling errors and other minor issues of Style. Do not add new content to it - create a new article instead. If you believe the article is erroneous, post an alert asking for a correction to be issued.

This is essentially what the German Wikinews does. I'm supportive of the first version, but the second one is probably not necessary once an article is archived (i.e. protected) --+Deprifry+ 12:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the reason for the second version is that archiving is done after two weeks or so (as per conventions) and in the meantime, we have add editors trying to add more information to articles. the two are distinct since newly published articles (ie. <= day old) are fair game for more content addition, whereas those over, say 3 days old, are not. Doldrums 13:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I pick up on "late" edits when I do the archiving, anything a few days after the date of the article is considered suspect. I also deal with things like removal of nonstandard quote characters, correction of dates to Month Day, Year, grammatical messes, misspellings, inline links to sources, incorrectly labelled sections, and generally anything else I see wrong with an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this — the first template could replace {{publish}}, the second box could be {{archive-pending}}, and when articles are finally archived, {{archived}} can be used. Like the current publish-tag, the archive template would be blank except for a category. The reason why I'm interested in replacing the publish tag with the first box is so we won't have to replace any current documentation, plus that tag is already hard-coded into the minds of many Wikinewsies. We should consider this for official practice as soon as possible. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I like the idea of being able to do this. I don't actually see how the Mediawiki software can detect the age of the publish category to affect the edit page text. And, like Doldrums, I'm not entirely sure this is effective as a post-editing response. Deprifry, can you explain a bit more how the German Wikinews does it? I didn't quite understand that page. - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed he was referring to a change on an interface page. While that wouldn't work out without changes to the software, the idea would be great as templates to add to articles. —this is messedrocker (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the place to use the templates, in order of desirability is (reasons for relative desirability in brackets)
  1. edit (interface) page of published and recently published articles (very targeted, prevents such edits)
  2. article page itself (prevents edits, but constantly "nags" readers)
  3. talk page of a user who wrongly edits a published page (does not prevent, but targeted nag)
it looks unlikely that automated addition of such templates is possible. in that case, we'll have to see whether manually inserting templates everyday is more work than reverting and educating editors who make a mistake, keeping in mind that User:Brianmc, who does a lot of the archiving says he already cleans up post-publish edits before archiving. Doldrums 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I try to clear up post-publish edits, but I don't look at the history of every page I archive. So it is generally only the obvious ones I catch. Examples would be adding sources/material after the date of the article, or an edit after a gap of 3 or 4 days that gets noticed for another reason. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Amgine. After an article in the German Wikinews has passed the review process, this template is applied which says that the article is "done" and that no further content-edits should be made. It is only then that they add the article to the main page, which is done manually. --+Deprifry+ 09:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to prevent that these templates are used to lock an article. A lot of users immediately publish articles, completely forgetting about {{develop}} and that Wikinews is a collaborative website. --+Deprifry+ 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, that's why the 'recent publish' template, and that's why the 'when to publish' proposal above. Doldrums 05:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about cases like this one. The article is not necessarily biased or incomplete but an editor might want to expand it by adding information from other sources, adding background etc. The recently published template would prevent this. --+Deprifry+ 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews related story template


Can the {{wikinews|title=|date=}} template be made so that it picks up the date field, {{date=}}, that is at the top of the linked article? That way no one will, accidentially or otherwise, be able to give an incorrect date for the article that they are linking to. So then the format would just be: {{wikinews|title=}}. --SVTCobra 14:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the software can do that, the only date that is available automatically when using a template is today's. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Thought I ought to ask. --SVTCobra 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]