Wikinews talk:Style guide

Archives 1

Article length

See discussion about this at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Minimum_length_of_articles_and_breaking_news

Proposal

{{flag}} Recognising the role factcheck articles play in many news organisations' content, I propose Wikinews allow there be 'analysis' articles. Not OR or synthesis, which certainly incorporate elements of original research & layout, but rather taking apart an issue, cutting it into FAQs and verifying contentious remarks. In short, this is synthesising and verifying existing remarks without necessarily a focal point.

Ex of questions for trend in Country X that wouldn't necessarily make a full story (unemployment is high; crime spike; Covid cases):

Why? / What about Country Y, Country Z? / What have politicians done about it? / What have the government promised? / What has the opposition said?

This, I understand, will benefit people looking toward longer, more holistic articles with more context than anything. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: Apologies for the delayed comment. I think this is an interesting idea that is worth exploring, given that we need to breathe new life into Wikinews. My guess is that you were thinking of something like Fact-checking Boris Johnson's claim about refugees, where the BBC takes a current matter and looks at the surrounding issues? If so, I fully support this idea. If not, please could you clarify your suggestion? [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I was thinking of citing them, but I know great examples too as long-form articles, for example by France 24 and thejournal.ie. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Then I fully support this. Can you write up a proposal for voting on at the Water Cooler? [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Seconded, think this is a good idea. LivelyRatification (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Sex, gender, and pronouns" section is baffling

Assuming that the "order of priority" is highest first (i.e. 1 is most important) then it's saying, to determine the sex/gender, ideally (#1) "use subject's preference), but in the absolute worst case (#4) "use the known sex/gender of the individual". And yet the "sex/gender of the individual" is precisely what the policy is dealing with, so #4 seems the most relevant. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:3061:C90F:25B0:9A32 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, #1 would be highest. It is standard to prioritize the subject's preference (the AP Stylebook recommends it, The Other Place has WP:GENDERID). But I find #4's existence confusing because I don't understand how it differs from #1, given sources would likely be following the subject's preference. Looking at the 2010 discussion that prompted the addition of this section, it looks like Tempo, at least, was interpreting that as how a government describes a person, possibly conflicting with the person's self-description. Anyway, I invite Amgine, who drafted this list, to shed light here. Heavy Water (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Source articles do not necessarily respect the subject individual's preferences. E.g. divorced parents of a child in British Columbia, one of whom eventually received a court order ordering they no longer publish misgendering/dead-naming interviews and articles on religious, political websites. Without documentation indicating an individual's identification/pronoun preferences (which is the case 99% of the time,) then there is a proposed series of questions the reporter can work through. This was added nearly ~20 years ago; I would recast the final question today as "Use the known or assumed gender/sex/pronoun as documented in sources."

I would also commend How are policies created? - Amgine | t 23:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Exact casualty/death counts in headlines

I have added to the Headline section[1] to include a statement regarding this. If it's important enough to require a correction, it's important enough to mention in the style guide ahead of time.

I know the style guide was meant to be concise, but we also can't have "concealed" or hard-to-find "institutional knowledge" in the form of longstanding norms and practices...especially when we have too few active reviewers who remember these norms and practices. This is not meant to be a dig on any individual(s), but rather to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)