Talk:Report says global warming may cause 25m malnourished children by 2050

Review of revision 891849 [Passed]

Revision 891849 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 891849 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

What is "over-linking"? If this is official Wikipedia, what are the rules (link request)? 99.35.10.191 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that was an inappropriate edit summary. The addition of one link, on Global warming, is quite appropriate - unless it is already present in the article. What is of more concern to me is changing "two" to "three" (or vice-versa). I'm busy on something else, so don't have time to dig into sources and check that change. Oh, and 'over-linking' isn't an official policy, but it is something you should consider given what would be appropriate for a news article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should elaborate on my intentions by the two edits in question.

The "overlinking" edit didn't touch the two-versus-three issue, and didn't touch the global warming link either. I wholeheartedly applaud the link on "global warming". There is (certainly to my knowledge) nothing official on Wikinews about overlinking; I was exercising my own subjective judgment that heavy linking to incidental topics is a distraction that makes the article harder to read (e.g. it makes it harder to know which links are really centrally relevant). Considering separately each one of the links in question, the one for "Sub-Saharan Africa" actually makes a lot of sense to me, and there are probably about two or three others that wouldn't actually bother me — but that's out of, what, about thirteen links for things like "Earth", "agriculture", and "income". With no easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff (e.g., Sub-Saharan was linked in the same edit with "agriculture" and "Earth"). The terminology "overlinking" I borrowed from Wikipedia usage.

The two versus three question is awkward if one doesn't know the date on which Nelson said those words; they aren't from the report. The VOA article says three months. Rather than tangle with it, I reworded to avoid saying either, and compensated for any resulting loss of information in the Wikinews article by linking to the Wikipedia article about the upcoming talks. --Pi zero (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, hope the OP notices too. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is an OP? 99.155.151.212 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)