Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Page last updated: Monday 03 at 0504 UTC.      

Refresh   

Archive

---

Archives 2009  May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010  January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011  January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 December 2011 2012  January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 2013  March 2013 April 2013 July 2013 September 2013 November 2013 2014  January 2014 February 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 2015  January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 October 2015 2016  January 2016 March 2016 May 2016 July 2016 August 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 2017  January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 August 2017 November 2017 December 2017 2018  January 2018 February 2018 April 2018 May 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 2019  February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 December 2019 2020  January 2020 March 2020 May 2020 June 2020 October 2020 2021  February 2021 July 2021 December 2021 2022  January 2022 February 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 October 2022 2023  January 2023 March 2023 November 2023

Idea:No Duplicates On The Main Page At Once

I'm because of all the Viktor Pinchuk articles. It is unreasonable that at any point 80% of our Main Page should be filled up with one very obscure topic. Imagine if the Guardian, The New York Times, BBC, The Washington Post, or any other similar newspaper had 80% of it's front page covered in 1 obscure author talking with an obscure news source. I think we should have a general limit of 1 article on the Main Page at once on a specific topic. Examples of things prohibited: Article 1 is about an Airstake by Country X on Place Y during a war with a lot of airstrikes, Article 2 is about a similar airstrike by Country X on Place Z 2 articles about 1 person, unless this is a very notable person and they are covered constantly in the news (ex.Joe Biden does not count, Victor Pinchuk does) Anything clearly in the spirit of this (preventing the Main Page from being clogged with a lot of the same/similar story) is also counted What do you all think. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't agree and I totally agree. We appreciate OR around here and God knows we need more of it. Viktor is smart and capable and does interesting 'lowbrow' photo journalism -- which is super cool. Because of his photos etc., I've bent the rules a few times, in various ways. That has stopped, pretty much effective 5 minutes ago. The problem is that how his submissions work here, it is all filled with a heaping tablespoon of COI, navel gazing, and general self-focused puffery. Not to mention, when the article mentions "Russian Wikinews", he was the reporter getting the story while he was mostly the focus of the story -- problem after problem. Moving forward, his articles must have a broadened gumbo of sources, inputs or what-have-you. He did improve (in a tiny, granular fashion) on focusing the article on THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION EVENT ITSELF... but that may not be enough for the future.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't just about Victor Pinchuk though, I general I don't think anything insignificant should be taking up 80% of our front page@Bddpaux Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser

I am seeking CU status -- go here: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions
I have been heavily involved here for roughly 16 years or so and I truly believe in this project. I deeply appreciate any support votes that might be provided!!--Bddpaux (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Staleness

I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this. Our normal route is to wait until four days have passed without edits (or talkpage discussion) and then tag an article with {{subst:aband}}. Then, if there are no edits for another two days, the article would be deleted. I have been thinking of suggesting we reduce this timeframe from 4+2 days to 3+1 days or even 2+1 days. I feel this might encourage people to not leave articles for too long. On the other hand I am often loathe to delete what might be otherwise decent articles, so alternatively we could extend the timeframe to perhaps 5+2 days? I am especially eager to build on the small changes we implemented last year when we increased the window of freshness from 2-3 days to 5-7 days and reduced the minimum length of an article to 100 words. What would you think of a change to the timeframe of the subst:aband route? [₂₄Cr][talk] 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cromium, I'll follow consensus, sorry about before I get confused easily... BigKrow (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)