From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Welcome to the Water Cooler

Shortcut: WN:WC Don't forget to flush! Welcome to the water cooler, a place to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikinews. This is divided into five sections; please use the table below to find the most appropriate section to post in, or just use the miscellaneous section. The water cooler is not the place to make lasting comments, as discussions are removed regularly to make room for new ones. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Policy To discuss existing and proposed policies (Add new message - Archive)

Technical To discuss technical issues (Add new message - Archive)

Proposals To discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (Add new message - Archive)

Assistance To post requests for assistance not covered elsewhere (Add new message - Archive)

Miscellaneous Discussions and questions which don't fit elsewhere (Add new message - Archive)

---

I want to...					Where to go
Get help using Wikinews					Help contents
Get collaborative help on an article					Newsroom
Comment on a specific article					Article's talk page
Use a reference desk (e.g., "Can someone check this fact?")					Reference desk
Make wiki software bug reports and feature requests					MediaZilla
View other Wikimedia projects					Wikimedia Meta-wiki
Help to promote Wikinews					Spread Wikinews
Report Mirrors and forks					Mirrors and forks

Policy

Refresh

Archive

---

Archives

Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.

You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.

---

Strategic Planning

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.

--Philippe

(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

Wikinews:Featured article candidates - should not be nominated until they are archived

This is an open poll listed on the Water cooler and Wikinews:Polls. Please remove the {{poll}} flag when the poll closes. Please discuss your poll ideas with the community before polling, and don't vote on everything as voting is evil.

• Wikinews:Featured article candidates - Candidates should not be nominated for consideration until after they have been archived. In this manner, the actual article being considered will not be one that is itself subject to change, perhaps rapidly in the case of a breaking story, but rather is a page that is complete and finished, and has afterwards been archived and fully-protected as per WN:ARCHIVE policy. It is only a wait time of Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: This would only apply for future nominations, not retroactively. Current noms would of course be grandfathered in. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments

• Neutral does it really matter that much? If it makes a difference, why not just have the article stay on WN:FAC an extra week. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of silly to debate the merits of giving something this consideration while it is still being edited, especially if it is a breaking story, and such an easy change to make, and would make things a lot more appropriate, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really care all that much either way, although there is a certain logic to this. One point - after 24 hours an article shouldn't be edited for content, so perhaps we should make the limit 24 hours instead of the full week? Tempodivalse [talk] 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The full week is best to make this more in line with the already existing policy of WN:ARCHIVE, and this way, when the article is being considered as a candidate, it will already conveniently be fully-protected. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But really, what difference would it make? If someone alters the article for content after 24 hours, it's going to be reverted per WN:ARCHIVE. That's almost the same thing as locking up the article so no one can edit it in the first place. *shrugs* Tempodivalse [talk] 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are cases where things could be changed, or at least where people could argue that things could (or perhaps should) be changed or tweaked. There have been situations at WN:FAC where people have proposed changing parts of articles specifically so that they could be better candidates. Making this seven days, would effectively remove all those arguments as a possibility from the WN:FAC page, and help to better focus FAC discussions in the future. :) Cirt (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but those sort of suggestions can be made after archiving, as well as before, you said so yourself below. I still don't see much of a difference between a 24 hour and 1 week limit, and i like the former because I think it's more practical (e.g. allows an article to be nominated quicker while it's still reasonably fresh). Tempodivalse [talk]

Better not to nominate an article quicker, rather per Brian McNeil (talk · contribs), below, it is better to take the time to reflect on the article prior to proposing. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, as proposed above. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Verily. No point to FAC'ing something that's been published for 2 hours. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Yep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support—sounds like a good idea to me. Dendodge _T\^C 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support because this is much better than not taking time to reflect on the article prior to proposing. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support although I would rather see either 24 or 48 hours, since it is quite possible to say, for example, 'could we budge that image a bit, its messing the formating up? Thats better' and then support. True, most or all of these things can be done post-archiving, but not everyone is an admin. We in the cabal cloakroom must bear that in mind. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   I would agree with you that those are minor things that can be done post archiving, per WN:ARCHIVE. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Support I think a week is just fine, though, I don't think we need to mold this as per archive. I think at the least, 72 hours may suffice. Though if its any number lower than archive period, I say we make a separate policy regarding FAC/FA. If not, then just go by archive. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I just don't think it is worth the bother to do that, it is simpler to just modify it as per existing policy of WN:ARCHIVE. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Support Logical idea, although I still prefer a shorter limit, like 24 or 48 hours. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   I just don't see the overwhelming urgent need for an emergent desire to nominate articles to become FAs faster than waiting seven days. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   And I don't see the need to have to wait an entire week before being able to nominate an article. I really don't have a strong opinion on it either way, as this is a relatively minor issue, wiki-wise, and won't significantly impact anything. I won't object to it regardless of which time limit is agreed upon, that's just my preference. It might be best to agree to disagree. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, no worries. :) Cirt (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

9. Support Yeah. No reason to FAC a recent news. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Articles that later become featured articles are going to become archived anyway, so what's the point? After all, we should be getting things done quickly, not waiting impatiently for about a week while the article that could become featured just lies there doing nothing. Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Newsworthiness - how to define it?

I've recently noticed that, while we frequently mention newsworthiness and have a {{newsworthy}} template, we don't have a policy on it, or anything in the help/policy/guideline pages that describes how much newsworthiness a story needs before it can be published. This was especially brought to my attention when a new user created Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient, a very local news article, and was a bit confused as to why it wasn't newsworthy enough for publication. See also the thread on my talk page. The closest we have to newsworthiness criteria is at WN:CG as far as I can tell: "News must be relevant", which is very vague and subjective. I'd like to suggest we create a policy page (or at least guideline) that gives pointers on what our minimum standards for "newsworthiness" is. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I steered clear of that particular article less-so for notability, more because the sources were crappy and of questionably credibility. I think newsworthiness could be a particularly contentious issue to try and nail down as a policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we all agree that something like User:Edbrown05/Grass in Uncle G's back garden continues to grow is not news worthy. But where the line is, is a very good question, and one i think that would be very hard to figure out. In many ways this is similiar to Wikipedia's issue of what is notable, perhaps we can maybe look there for some ideas how to define newsworthiness (as in to see how they go about defining it, there definition of notability obviously is not a good definition of news worthiness). Bawolff ☺☻ 13:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a newsworthiness policy — a very flexible and subjective one, which I think are probably beneficial traits, at least at the size and stage of development where we are now. Template:Newsworthy refers to WikiNews:Content guide, which says:

• News is relevant. Being Wikinews — global and Internet-based — stories about local news may need to have their relevance explained for our international audience. Stories should appeal to a large number of people.

This doesn't actually say no local stories, although it does seem somewhat discouraging of them. And even that could have unfortunate long-term consequences. There is a deep question here about possible directions for the long-term evolution of WikiNews. Perhaps what we should be doing is providing more guidance on how to include local stories, making them as comprehensible and interesting for a wider audience as may be, and at the same time providing some sort of additional/modified infrastructure so that they don't become annoying clutter for those readers who aren't interested in them. Imagine a future in which Wikinews is a major source of news, both local and non-local, for myriad (English-speaking, in our case) localities around the world, with orders of magnitude more throughput than we have now. It's not that different a concept from Wikipedia providing lots of specialized articles, that might be looked at by anyone, but are only likely to be relevant to people with certain interests. --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing I often make reference to is the fact that a traffic accident is typical local news. If the article is of similar 'importance' (in a news sense) to articles like Driver hits median strip, rolls vehicle in NSW, Australia, then it is newsworthy enough for inclusion without doubt. Just to throw that out there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is why I'm leery of trying to formulate a 'hard' policy. Perhaps the biggest problem we face is ultra-local or "microinterest" stuff that is questionable. The usual problem with things like this is that the contributors working on them are involved and have a likely COI. The kill on sight ones are those you see using SEO techniques to promote their project or interest; yes, a lot of them are gamer sites pushing how they've got the latest news on something. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I think we need some kind of guideline, even if it's reasonably vague. "Significant coverage in other mainstream (non-local) news organisations" would be the best criterion, in my opinion, but I'm reasonably happy with what we have now. Dendodge _T\^C 20:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• "non-local"? enwp style? You want to ban local news? No way from me. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Not ban local coverage, just not include anything that hasn't made its way onto the BBC or CNN or similar. If they don't consider it newsworthy, we can probably also do without it. All it serves to do is clog newpages with stuff people outside of that region are unlikely to read. Perhaps "of interest to people outside of a certain geographic area" would be better? Dendodge _T\^C 20:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• To me, not including anything that isn't on national news sites pretty much is a ban on local news. It's often quite haphazard what does and does not end up there and the best sources would tend to be the local ones anyway. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Limiting what we can report on to international news sources is not a very good idea, i think. We'd miss out on a lot of legitimate local news that way. My idea was not to create a "hard" policy on it, but to make some mention that "micro-local" (i.e. not very significant even at the local level) stories, such as Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient, are probably not going to be accepted. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think you're probably right. A vague guideline is better than an en.wp-style hard policy. Cases should be assessed on their individual merits, not against a checklist of bureaucratic criteria. The last thing I want to do is ban local news. I think the hard part comes when we try to set a dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable local stories. I don't think, having thought about it more, that my proposals for a hard line are very good, and think a simple recommendation (with examples) would work better. Dendodge _T\^C 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Methinks it be the story, not the paper that reports it, that makes the difference. Rabat Chaîne Inter reporting on bus strikes on the 55B bus route between Kenitra and Rabat doth not a good story for an international market make. OTOH, should Sa Majesté Mohammed VI be killed in a terrorist explosion, I'd use them as one of the sources (yes I know, the BBC would probably report on that, but I think you get my point). --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry if I essentially opened up Pandora's box when I wrote that Benet article, but this discussion does bring up a point: how should "local news" be defined? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Local news", from my perspective, is news that's only concerns/is of significance within a relatively small area or population (i.e. a town, small city, city district, etc. etc.), and isn't relevant to many people outside that area. (does that make sense?) I don't think there's any strict boundary between "local" and "national/international" news, it's pretty subjective and really depends on one's definition of "local". Tempodivalse [talk] 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason for Category:Local only. Were Wikinews contributed to by as many people as Wikipedia there should be absolutely no reason to stop doing the legitimate local news. This — in theory — is the point of the Portal: namespace. If we end up with 20-30 people reporting from Pakistan and India, then those contributors can have a portal where they pick the leads for their geographic audience.

If you take the time to really explore something like the BBC News and Sport websites you'll find lots of interesting coverage that rarely makes the front page. A real gem to look out for hidden there is BBC Monitoring.

Wikinews can have authority by depth; well put together local news is a part of that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot we had "Local only"! I have nothing against any news, no matter how narrow its scope, as long as it does not push more important (in a news sense, not in the sense that students with lukaemia are unimportant, as that is obviously untrue) news off the DPLs and Latest News listings, while still allowing people who are genuinely interested to access it (through categories and/or portals). Dendodge _T\^C 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't school related articles, therefore, to be considered as local news? A school is essentially a community of kids living in the same region. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps. But it does not make it a venue for you to publish your school newsletter. There are issues with contributor conflict of interest, self-promotion/PR, not to mention verifiability. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with banning articles on trivial topics such as schools' extracurricular organizations, but since when did supporting a leukemia patient become NOT newsworthy? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • When you 'only' raised $205. I appreciate that's a very worthwhile result, but newsworthy? That is where this kind of discussion starts. Actually, we've needed to have this one for a while, so whatever we decide, the article did *something* important. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, just providing intuition with more raw data can jump-start it. So in that spirit, how much would they have to have raised to make it newsworthy? We can probably agree that it would be news if they'd raised $205 million; and the boundary between the two is presumably fuzzy, but roughly where would that fuzzy boundary be? Would it be newsworthy at $205 thousand? $20.5 thousand? What about $2050? --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's contextual; it can depend on the total annual income for the charity, the annual charitable donations by a group, or how it compares with the local GDP. Each case would need considered on merit. Perhaps better trying to build a list of questions; the story submitter reviews them and lists data for where there's a "yes" answer as a list of 'newsworthiness criteria'. $500 might be a lot in one case - if it was something like a village in Africa locally raising the funds to buy a small computer or a server for their OLPC users. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in complete agreement with Brian. Context is everything (c.f. my comment above). I like the idea of a list of questions: we could have a number of them, and an article may not have to fulfil every single one, just use it as a general guide as to the sense of newsworthiness (I don't believe in too many hard and fast rules or ticking every single box; sometimes things come down to judgement). I think one of the things that defines newsworthiness to me, is a story being out of the ordinary or being a notable achievement (though this introduces more fuzzy notions I fear). Something that is the exception, rather than the rule for example—a recent story on the BBC springs to mind, where an Indian schoolboy, after finishing his classes, went back to his village and was headmaster in a makeshift school for over 300 or so slightly-younger students, who otherwise would have had no education. Another thing maybe to bear in mind is the list of categories currently set up as guiding factors: whilst of course we can create new ones, they give a broad idea of what sort of articles we currently publish. Obviously these will develop over time, and I'm all for change. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the gedankenexperiment about quantities of money raised, I was thinking that unusual-ness contributes to newsworthiness; and, thinking that that can't possible be all there is to it, I decided that having impact on a large number of people contributes to newsworthiness. But then I came across this story: London Lord Mayor's Show draws crowds despite bad weather. I loved this story. Why is it newsworthy? Yes, there's an historical connection between that culture and mine, but I'm pretty sure I'd similarly enjoy an analogous story in a different cultural setting... unless we got glutted with them. So maybe unusual-ness comes into play; but if so then, it seems to me, unusual-ness has such sweeping breadth to it that different aspects of it need separate explanation. And there's some sort of local-interest floating around here, of a sort that, I think, has some appeal for an international audience. Can stories be of equal local interest, yet not of equal newsworthiness by our standards because of how they'll play to a wider audience? And, is there something wrong with a notion of newsworthiness that would cause local stories to become less newsworthy simply because the number of them increases? --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree about the issue of newsworthiness relating to the Lord Mayor story. It's a long-held tradition, most people in the UK will know about it - if not seen one of the stagings of the event on TV - and there were topical items in it; the new Lord Mayor having a finance background, and linking him to the RAF. It, also, doesn't qualify as the same sort of crass commercialism as a multinational spending similar sums to make people by something. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

{{breaking}} and {{breaking review}} abuse

This, 40th H1N1 swine flu death recorded in Scotland, by no stretch of the imagination, can be considered deserving of an urgent review.

All the — oft-repeated — expert opinions are that H1N1-A is no more deadly than the general annual flu season. There is some difference in the groups where serious illness and death occurs, but it is not new, it is not killing thousands, and it is well-understood.

Not to mention that when I just looked at the opening of the above article it started, "A Adult".

I'm sure there's a few other people might like to give an opinion on use of {{breaking}} and {{breaking review}}. I don't think we should follow the Fox-style dramatisation of news and attention-grabbing tactics splattering things like that over everything entails. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've also noticed that {{breaking}} seems to be used as an excuse to to hash out a mediocre article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. In my opinion, the {{breaking}} and {{breaking review}} tags should only be used when the story is about something that has happened just minutes ago, or when it's an event that's actively ongoing and likely to change dramatically within a short period of time - e.g., stuff like the Fort Hood shootings or the Hudson River jet crash. Maybe we should create a guideline page to give suggestions and explanations for when the breaking tags are appropriate? Tempodivalse [talk] 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have slightly more leeway with the {{breaking review}} template. My reasoning behind that is that sometimes when a story unlikely to change breaks (EU Presidency, for example) it is nice to throw the article out in a timescale to match the newswires. Julian raises a good point though: the excuse behind a crappy article. We can have crappy filler articles if no-one writes anything better, but we should be careful not to do that purely because that's all we have to do. Wikinews at its best os going above and beyond. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a narrow window of opportunity where, for the new EU Pres story, we could have beat the NYT twitter feed. It is never an excuse to submit something for review that, within the first sentence, breaks rules of English you should learn before nine or ten. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical

Refresh

Archive, post

---

Archives

Articles bumped to top of main page DPLs if {{published}} is removed

I've noticed that, every time a vandal blanks a published/sighted article, and it gets reverted, it bumps the article to the top of the main page DPLs - even if it's several days old. I've had to add Category:Archived to one article today to get it off of the lists. I see a potential for abuse here - a vandal can easily disrupt the display list by removing the publish tag on old articles. Even if the edit remains unsighted and is reverted, it will stay on the top of the DPL. One way to bypass this is to do what i did - add the archived category, despite the article not being archived - but is there a more convenient solution to this? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe there is a bug outstanding for this - something Flagged Revisions doesn't quite yet handle. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revs should have fixed this (this is a long standing issue though) See bugzilla:20813. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure some semi-auto scripts for adding things like categories in bulk to archived articles had a tendancy to push them into becoming the latest in the DPLs. FlaggedRevs can't stop that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugly Ass central site notice

Apparently the WMF likes to rub it into everyone else face that we're not Wikipedia. I've got nothing against raising money, because we cost money to stay on the air, but that thing is fucking hideous. No offense to whom ever "designed" that concept... For those of you who don't appreciate the giant mess on your screen, add the following to your personal CSS files:

#centralNotice { display: none !important; }

Really, if I had my druthers, I'd make some "adjustments" to Mediawiki:Common.css to help fix that fugly banner. Here's what I was thinking:

#centralNotice { font-size: 60%; }

#center-logo { display: none !important; }

I was warned that futzing with the banner could end "poorly" (not that I've ever cared about the consequences), so here's one better. What does the community think? Should we keep it as it? Should be make it less annoying (smaller) or should we remove it all together (until _they_ make it less annoying)? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Shaka, it's broken. I'm using IE on Windows - the world's most common combination - and the link is unclickable. On that basis, it needs to come down right now and I'd do it myself if I knew/understood MW well enough. Once, and only once, they fix that issue with it we put it back for the vote. BTW, I vote for removal when that time comes. We cannot have our site paraded round with a broken link being the very first thing that greets people. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, can't be clicked, looks awful; please remove as quickly as possible. It's not even our logo for crying out loud. Until they make a nice one, get rid of it.    Tris   10:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm whinging to ComCom on your behalf. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh god. I saw the proposed banner on meta and thought it was awful, but I assumed they would take account of some of the feedback there. Or at least use the right logo and a working link! I'll back completely anyone who removes it, Foundation permission or not. the wub "?!" 11:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hacked ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

#centralNotice { font-size: 60%; font-variant: small-caps; } #center-logo { image: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Wikinews-logo.svg/50px-Wikinews-logo.svg.png"); }

That keep everyone happy? Someone tell me what the 'standard' css is for the fugly one and I'll do something better. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Noticed one little problem - the "hide" button is microscopic. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not working for me, it still shows the Wikipedia logo despite plenty of hard refreshing/purging. :( the wub "?!" 12:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the banner, Brianmc's fix must have worked for me. Isn't this is something like what the banner looks like? Utterly hideous, it was a good idea to take it down. I wonder if the folks from the foundation are going to complain. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My attempted fix didn't work. I was trying to figure out the CSS to substitute the image in my userspace when someone took the central notice down. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Discussion moved to Wikinews:Fundraiser and Wikinews talk:Fundraiser

This needs to be sorted out and made damn sure never to happen again. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks where they shouldn't be - WTF?

I opened up an old article just now, only to find that links piped to Wikipedia were instead formating themselves as local redlinks. The page was Driver hits median strip, rolls vehicle in NSW, Australia. Anyone else see this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki's broken. Known issue. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First I've seen it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to have been fixed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Article failed put back up for review not showing up correctly

Two Azerbaijani bloggers jailed failed because France 24 decided to move the URL and hence not all content was verifiable. That corrected, I manually changed to {{review}}, and whilst the article showed up in the Newsroom as requiring a review, it did not come up in the list of articles to be reviewed that one sees as an editor. I undid the change, replaced the re-review with issues tag to {{developing}} then used the javascript button to move back to {{review}}. Again, the article is in the Newsroom, but not in the site-wide list of articles to be reviewed. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The review alert gadget puts a limit of maximun showing 7 stories at once (to prevent say some vandal putting 200 articles up for review). (I'll try to make it show a more link when it does this). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if that might be the case, which is why I started attacking the backlog. I see the "More >" link now. Thanks! --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

New RC patrolling concept

Hello, is there any needs to add the site in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21517? JackPotte (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't we already have that? Something very simlar, anyway. I'm not sure anybody even uses it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• We have it. However, it is tied to Editor status. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We've got FlaggedRev's for the articles, and don't have that much other vandalism... because we don't have that many edits. I think we're good w/o. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd bug when trying to edit an article marked for review

This has happened to me a number of times: when I click on the Edit link next to the title on an article tagged {{review}}, instead of allowing me to edit the body text, it opens up the Sources section. I have to use the Edit tab on the top of the page to edit the entire article instead. System Win XP SP3 with Firefox latest version. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange, that has never happened to me. Quick question: are you using the "edit link to edit lead" gadget in Special:Preferences? That might have a few bugs in it. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this re-producible? (can you give me a page where this always happens? and the url that the link in question directs you to when it goes to the wrong section). The gadget does what is does in an extremely convuluted way, (It creates a new link element thats a copy of another link item, than tries to insert it early in the document, and than changes the url of the copied link. If i was doing it, i'd just create a new link, and set the url apropriatly). This could do this if for some reason it copied multiple links instead of just one. (not sure under what circumstances this would happen. maybe if there was a link in the sources header). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes to Tempodivalse, and if it happens again I'll report the exact circumstances (links etc.) for Bawolff. It was driving me nuts for a couple of days, but has been behaving itself since. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Social bookmark - bug

Just got a bug with the {{social bookmarks}} template...

• http://imagebin.ca/view/a9rMGRqq.html

This article (Orange Telecom and the €160,000 bill) also gave problems with WN:ML, so it may be its formatting. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Facebook has crappy utf-8 support. Its probably choking on the € sign. This is probably not a bug on our end (there was actually a wikitech-l thread a while back about this issue) . If you use a url without the euro sign in it, [1] it seems to work fine. Theoretically we could try to detect when we use unicode characters, and send an alternate form of the url to facebook. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Twitter has the same problem. The en_wikinews feed came up with a "?" for the Euro symbol on the same story. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats more likely an issue with ShakataGaNai's bot than twitter, since twitter definitly works in non-ascii languages. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikinews; this is not the bot you are seeking. :-P --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bawolff is correct, the problem is in my bot. It doesn't handle anything outside of ASCII with any grace. Welcome to PHP, it doesn't do UTF (easily). Eventually I'll fix it, but a stray questionmark in one entry out of every 100 or so... isn't high on the priority list. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

type=breaking in leads

I've noticed that some people have been complaining on the RC that putting a lead with type=breaking (And i assume by extension, type=urgent and similiar things) messes up spacing on the main page. Should i disable use of the type parameter in WN:ML? Bawolff ☺☻ 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Tell them to screen shot it and report it somewhere. Here, or my talk page. I'll check it out and fix the templates as needed. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Refresh

Archive

---

Archives

WN redirecting to Wikinews

Result

100%

In wikipedia, if you type WP:Article, it will automatically redirect to Wikipedia:Article. That means WP is an alternative name Wikipedia namespace. It is not so in Wikinews. E.g. WN:WC which redirects to Wikinews:Water cooler. The shortcut exists in article namespace and not Wikinews namespace. Suppose if we have the facility that Wikipedia has, we can create Wikinews:WC which will redirect to Wikinews:Water cooler and assume that WN:WC doesn't exist. Then also WN:WC will redirect to Wikinews:Water cooler. This will happen because WN is an alternative of Wikinews namespace and automatically all WNs will redirect to Wikinews. Please vote for the proposal below. Srinivas 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support—I have wondered for a long time why this doesn't already exist here, but never bothered to bring it up. Dendodge _T\^C 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support seems like a good idea. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• I didn't realize wikipedia did this. I'm all for making WN: an alias of the wikinews namespace. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes, as being the poll starter! Srinivas
• Support What Dendodge said Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Useful. Adambro (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Cirt (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs; I don't think people need instructions on how to vote in hidden comments, and people should be encouraged to discuss proposals to ascertain if they believe they are useful and beneficial. In this case, the proposal description did not make sense to me until I saw Bawolff's remark - that it is an alias. Having installed and configured MediaWiki, that made sense to me, so this is something I support. The more correct description of what people are rushing to vote for is, an assigned name (technically 'alias') for any given wiki's project namespace. "Project:" should always work, we've got "Wikinews:" set as an 'alias', or synonym, this would make "WN:" a second alternative. However, getting this done in the database will not change shortcuts like WN:WC to being in the project namespace. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- the wub "?!" 10:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yep. Pmlineditor^Talk 14:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is ready to be closed as successful. Could someone with experience handling bugzilla: file a request? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done as bugzilla:21428. Dendodge _T\^C 14:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews major contributors

I had cause to fiddle with my user page some today, and I have some degree of pride in the number of articles I've done, and length of time working on the project. There are others have done far more articles that I, and most of the core contributors who do Original Reporting and similar have a fair list of contributions.

I would like to propose a user-related category structure. Yes, it serves very little towards the project's goals, but it is - to me - a better recognition than your username in the page history. All proposed categories would be hidden, but users would be able to construct DPLs on their user pages to highlight articles where they were major contributors.

1. A top-level category Category:Major contributors
2. User-specific categories, eg Category:Contributor Brian McNeil, Category:Contributor Jason Safoutin, Category:Contributor Jon Davis, &c.

To stress, these would be hidden and for use by contributors. It would be great for people involved in things like the London bombing article to get their name on it in a discreet way, and where they've worked elsewhere build lists of such - for example, to me it would be really good to have a list of all the South Thailand insurgency articles I worked on; I spent a lot of time on that topic. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this a good idea. It would be easier than manually adding articles to my user subpage --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. One question though, wouldn't this involve having to edit lots of archived pages just to add a category for an article one has written? For instance, i've written 300 articles. It'd take a lot of effort and time to add Category:Contributor Tempodivalse to all of them. Or are you suggesting we should only implement this for articles created in the future (i.e. don't bother adding them to archived articles)? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest a bot of some sort to add such categories to archived pages--RockerballAustralia (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! Commons has a similar system including user-specific hidden cats and it has worked quite well there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Glad to see this wasn't shot down in flames. I've not thought about archived articles other than in a selfish manner. Most people who care enough to want the attribution have admin privs and can do this. If there's some way we can factor in use of a bot, that'd be great; it's not urgent, we can probably cope with this via {{editprotected}} until we firm up criteria a bot would work from. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Bot would be difficult, I'd think... but I'm not opposed to the idea. I was actually just thinking about this very same thing the other night. It is kinda "unwiki" but let's be honest, everyone has a list of articles they've worked on a significant amount, on their user pages. For me, filling my cat wont take by a few minutes, but Dragon's will be... painful. The real question though, do we do it by real name or wikiname? Simply because some might not be AR and not want to be "outed", but still want to have a cat. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will this be opt in or opt out? Cirt (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say opt in --RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but what would be the criteria for adding the category? Does a user just have to consider themselves a major contributor, or would consensus be needed? Dendodge _T\^C 22:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Obtaining and determining consensus on hundreds of articles would be too time-consuming, I think. I'd say we should have a "3 medium-sized paragraph" limit to consider oneself a "major contributor" (the same amount as the minimum size for an article). Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Dendodge _T\^C 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like it to be far less formal. I say we trust people to do it; after all, you can add a list to your userpage by yourself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• BRS seems to be nuancing this in the right way. If someone comes along, writes 2-3 minimal articles, then starts slapping themselves as a 'major contributor' on everything they fix grammar/typos in, is not going to get a pleasant reception. We can't afford spending the time heavily policing this, so it's not something I'd particularly publicise. To answer other points - you choose between real name or pseudonym; the main function is internal, I know a hell of a lot of contributors real names and how they match pseudonyms, they decide how this categorisation might impact them. So, I suggest for the most part, we maintain ourselves and discuss as it progresses. Maybe later this week I'll start setting up a few test categories. I think DragonFire1024 has to be one of the up-front people to get part of the treatment (as well as doing myself) - if he agrees I'll see what I can do. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I do have to be totally up-front about one item I'm interested in seeing from this. It might upset some people, I would hope it would encourage them to work harder and to higher standards. I list a little over 100 articles on my user page where I consider myself not just a 'major contributor', but enough of one to claim a nebulous ownership over the article. I think there's at least three or four FAs in that; something I'm very, very proud of. Given that, and me planning to add a "FA's I'm a major contributor to" DPL to my userpage, does anyone change their mind or stance on this? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• I add the pages I feel that I have significantly created to my userpage, and being able to add a hidden category would simplify this. By significantly created, this for me means that I either wrote the article myself from scratch or that (in one instance) I worked on a duplicate article which I later merged into another. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Abolish the Portal: namespace

I was randomly browsing through some Wikinews pages today, and I came across Portal:New Zealand. I was quite surprised to discover that all the lead articles on the portal were way out of date - the most recent story listed was half a year old. A look through several other portal pages indicated that this was the case for many other portals. I got to thinking: the portal namespace is, for all practical purposes, an exact duplicate of the corresponding category namespace, except with a (usually out-of date) lead article and without the category lists at the bottom. IMHO, the portal does not have any additional benefits to the category: to the contrary, it's just another page that requires maintenance, and it takes a lot of effort to keep all the leads on them up to date (given that there are what, over 100 of them?). Take a look at Portal:Africa and Category:Africa. They're practically the same except for the topic boxes (which could easily be copied).

In short it seems like unnecessary effort to keep the portals around. As such, I propose to completely get rid of the namespace. Some ideas for how we could go about this:

1. All portal redirects (i.e. UK, Russia, etc.) will be pointed at the corresponding category instead, possibly with the help of a bot.
2. The different topic sections/boxes on portals (i.e. "Crime and law", "Politics and conflicts") can be copied to the corresponding category pages. We could have a bot do this as well, I don't think it should be terribly difficult to program.
3. The "lead article" part will be completely removed, and will instead be replaced by a DPL, which would automatically keep everything up-to-date with the latest articles, instead of having to do it manually.

I understand that this might require a bit of effort, but my overall feeling is that removing the portal pages will be better for us in the long run. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I once promised (was it Shakataganai? Bawolff?) that I would bring this up myself, but never did. I didn't know the future I predicted this morning was going to be set in motion by this afternoon! Seriously, these are far too much work to maintain and are a distraction from the main newswriting process. Sprucing up the category system is a much better aproach. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, the portal namespace works. It uses encylopedic content, which rarely goes out of date, and is more regularly updated. On a news site, however, especially one with such a small user base (in comparison), it fails due to the excessive speed at which news stories become no longer relevant. I think we should abolish the namespace, as it can never serve any purpose here. Dendodge _T\^C 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

kill kill kill Portal namespace is, and always was, a solution in need of problem imho. Historically we seemed to have some people with a rampant hatred of the alphabetical category listing (edits like this come to mind). Personally i don't see anything wrong with having both a DPL as well as the alphabetical list. Well we're at it, I strongly suggest we shoot {{geo-portal}} repeatedly. This template is used on all sorts of portals of extremely small places, that have roughly 10 articles, and then tries to split them up into different categories + a lead template, and just generally doesn't do a good job. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Has any thought been given on how to handle portal:Australia. To date, it is effectivly the only portal that has actually been used as a portal, and such has all sorts of interesting subpages - ex: Portal:Australia/in depth header among others, that do not fit into the category namespace. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Bumping thread to bring it to the top of people's watchlists and ensure that it doesn't get auto-archived, this discussion seems to have stalled. We need some more input to reach a decision. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the issue i mentioned above, here is how I think we should proceede. Declare the portal namespace deprected, redirect all the portals to their respective category pages (we can do this slowly as we see links, or we can get a bot). Leave all the portal subpages (mostly stuff for wikinews importer bot and a couple of other odd pages, such as the various Australia subpages) intact. Slowly move any link to the portal namespace thats not to a subpage, to the equivelent category page, and just not create any new pages in the portal namespace. We will also have to move some subpages of mediawiki:Common.css and mediawiki:Common.js. We will also have to figure out how to deal with portal pages that don't have a specific category associated with them (Portal:North Korea nuclear proliferation and some of the weather pages) We could probably leave them where they are. (In case of the weather portals, some of them should probably be deleted) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In the two years I spent on Wikinews as an active contributor, they never really got much use. And for the things that are there, a good majority of them are no longer maintained. --Thunderhead 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Refresh

Archive

---

Archives

Wikinews Importer Bot blocked

Please see here. Yes, I blocked the bot. It's posting the wrong stories under the wrong dates and has been for some time. Recently it suddenly caught up and I thought it was fixed, but no, it started doing it again. Check out w:Portal:Current events. Bot operator Misza13 said the bot itself was working fine some time ago, so I'm guessing it's up to us to track down the problem. So... Anyone know where we go next? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

/me looks into it. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the importer bot is not updating the page. Why this is occuring, I'm not sure, but i tried to change a couple things that might be causing it.

• Caching. The page is based on a template in a template, based on a parser function. All the levels of indirection could cause the bot to get a cached version of the dpl perhaps (but thats inconsistant with the &action=purge the bot uses)
• Something weird to do with the <noinclude>. The pages on wikinews the bot uses, uses weird noincludes, but that shouldn't make a difference. However this shouldn't really matter.

Other possible issues:

• Vector maybe? As far as i can tell, that should not matter.

So I tried to change these things, maybe it'd make it work (unsure). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. I don't think those changes will do anything —The preceding unsigned comment was added by bawolff (talk • contribs)

Well we should really get this fixed soon, as it feeds into w:Portal:Current events. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We're working on a new theory - bot operator disspared off the face of the earth, and his bots dissapeared with him for a short time period. It may or may not work now.Bawolff ☺☻ 20:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble started before he left; that was how he could tell me the bot itself seemed to be okay. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to work now. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the bot been unblocked and is this back to normal? Cirt (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bot has been unblocked. No, it still doesn't work. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is working for me. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same w:Portal:Current events? There is no way South African Vipers win Singapore Rugby Sevens is hot off the press today, yet the bot claims it is the latest article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, someone must have edited it post publish, changing the DPL output. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no. It was like posting every article from that date as 'todays'. However, since last I commented here it's done another run, and that one worked. Fingers crossed it keeps working now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not working today. Wrong articles once again. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• It appears to be a caching issue, that we didn't notice, as dpls are only cached for anons. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand

Just to clarify. The bot is not posting wrong articles, it is just not upating the templates. Portal current events works as follows

• There is a template, all articles wikinews published today, another one, all articles published yesterday, and so on up to 6 days ago.
• w:Portal:Current events uses {{#time}} to write the current date, and than includes the template, articles published by wikinews today
• Bot does not update templates
• Portal:Current events assumes that the template all articles published by wikinews today is up to date, where really it was last updated several days ago. All articles published today as of several days ago, is really all articles published several days ago. This template is transcluded under todays date. Thus it looks like the bot is pulling the wrong articles, where really the bot just is letting the all articles published today template become outdated.

Bawolff ☺☻ 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[2] = seems not to be a problem with the bot... Cirt (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(this is based on stuff i determined after writing the above) Actually its sort of is -ish - its a problem with DPL that the bot should take into account. We cache dynamic page lists (which is a bad thing in general as the caching method isn't paticularly good, and stale content can easily get served up. However it stops the servers from commiting suicide, so thats a good thing) The bot should take this into account. historically the bot added &action=purge to the url, but when it switched to the api, it stopped doing that. (or at least this is my current theory on what is happening). Compare [3] when logged in, and when not logged in. When not logged in, that page shows (or at least for me) shows the latest news as of november 5th. when logged in it shows the actual version. Some other queries [4] seem to avoid this problem in both cases. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Appers to be working now. Everyone give Misza13 a big wiki-hug. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient

Please see the talk page of this article. We need some outside opinions on whether this article is {{newsworthy}} enough for publication. I'm advertising the discussion here to get a bigger audience. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Refresh

Archive

---

Archives

Interviews

*Copied from Tempodicalse's Talk Page*

I have been able to get an interview with the CDC regarding the swine flu pandemic, but now I am at a loss of which question to ask. Could you possibly help me? Thanks, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. Just a few ideas, off the top of my head: 1.) What measures are going to be taken to combat the swine flu? 2.) Are current anti-flu vaccines effective? How much supply of vaccine is there? 3.) What can you advise us to do to reduce our chance of being infected? 4.) Just how deadly is swine flu?

There are probably better questions, but that's the best i could come up with for the moment. Why don't you ask about this at the water cooler? You'd get a larger audience that way, perhaps someone will think up something. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy this to the water cooler also. I'm hoping this interview with Mr. Dimond goes good. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What I have as of now:

  1. How does the CDC feel the media has handled the H1N1 flu pandemic?
  2. What measures are the CDC taking to combat the swine flu?
  3. What areas around the world are affected most by the swine flu?
  4. Are the current anti-flu vaccines effective and how sufficient is the current supply?
  5. How can one avoid infection and how deadly is this disease?
  6. What efforts have the CDC made to insure vaccines are available for those with no or poor health-care?
  7. If someone suspects they have swine flu what would the best course of action be?
  8. When will the swine flu die down and cease being a pandemic?
  9. Besides the CDC, what other entities, governmental and private, are involved in stopping this disease and how?
  10.Is there a significant risk of H1N1 mutating with other viruses and becoming stronger? 

--The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My question:

1. What efforts will the CDC make to provide A (H1N1) vaccines available to those who have little or no access to healthcare? I'm thinking of huge areas of Africa and Asia so this question probably needs to be formulated a little better. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added one and it sparked another. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion, about question number three: since swine flu has spread to very many places in the world now, maybe a more specific question would be "what areas around the world have been affected the most by swine flu?" or something like that. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it is almost done, --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My question:

• Is there a significant risk of H1N1 mutating with other viruses and becoming stronger?

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes an even ten, so that should be good. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I love the good, in depth answers emailed to scoop!    Tris   20:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy 5th Birthday Wikinews

Today, November 8th, 2009 marks the 5th anniversary of the English Wikinews (the first and most awesome of all Wikinews). So happy birthday to us, and here's to 5 more years of pain and sufferingJournalism! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews

I have noticed the Audio Wikinews pages is extremely disorganized and since it it linked in the Main Page, I thought it would be best for a group of editors to fix up the mess that is Audio Wikinews. I'm willing to help also. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's new content is the issue. I'm looking at the Wikimedia Radio concept again; for that a really short brief put out regularly (like at least 2 times a day) would be ideal. I'm running a test on http://1radio.org on Monday (0200 - 0400 UTC). If you hate The Grateful Dead, then suggest some other music to play. I'm interested in using live stuff like bootlegs while I get some experience with this. Yes, anyone else interested in doing this can bug me for a how-to in setting up Ubuntu to do it. Windows/Mac? You're on your own. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request from User:Poetlister

UNBLOCK REQUEST

Can you please reverse your block on Wikinews. I believe that the block is unjustified because I have done nothing whatsoever wrong on Wikinews. As you may know, I have no global ban. For example, I am not blocked on Wikisource. I have never heard of another case in which someone was blocked on a wiki solely because of a block elsewhere. Have you? On the contrary, there are cases in which someone is blocked on one wiki while holding high positions elsewhere; Aphaia is a good example.

In any case, can you please remove the block on my e-mail on Wikinews to make it easier to contact people rather than having to do it via other wikis.

Poetlister

I got the above email via Wikisource. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Ask around. This is a user with an — ahem — previous elsewhere. Realistically, they would be better starting off with a new username to avoid importing enemies or getting undue attention because of the issue. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we usually block users based only on negative actions elsewhere? Imho, barring another Grawp or JarlaxeArtemis, users should only be blocked on wikis they've abused. I agree with Brianmc though that this user might be better off creating a new account. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we? Yes. If someone is a problem everywhere they show up, I see no problem with preemptively banning them, and I do, on occasion. Not for little shit, but for big issue people. I dont know anything about this user and I didn't ban them, hence the copy/pasta here. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The instant "case against". I have little interest in trawling through Wikipedia's dirty laundry. History of talk page prior to that was not unreasonable - but large gap up to the block. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Not appropriate to unblock at the moment, given their previous history of disruptive actions on other projects. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree here with Juliancolton (talk · contribs), but I'd rather simply defer to community consensus about this. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• The user should be unblocked, imho. I disagree with blocking users based solely on the fact that they have had a bad history elsewhere (unless it's someone like grawp). The blocking policy doesn't say we can block users just because of bad behaviour on other projects. Poetlister has, in the past, been a constructive and even helpful user: Special:Contributions/Poetlister. I think he should only be blocked here if/when he makes inappropriate/disruptive actions here. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the community thinks about it, but there was this [5], [6], [7]. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a new email today:

Thanks. I note you say "I dont know anything about this user and I didn't ban them". The reason I contacted you was because of this:

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AQuillercouch

04:47, 24 September 2008 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs) blocked Quillercouch (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ? (Sockpuppetry: Cato/Poetlister - per User talk:Poetlister and http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=820302#Cato.2C_Poetlister_and_Yehudi)

If you are saying that the Quillercouch account is not connected to me, all the more reason for you to reverse the ban!

Cheers

I read that as "Yes, I'm an asshole, and that is my account but I'm not gonna cop to it". So, IMHO Stay Banned --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Just as a note, I received the following unblock request via Wikisource from Poetlister (I don't check that email account often, so I only noticed it today, but it was sent yesterday):

UNBLOCK REQUEST

I note your comment "I agree with Brianmc though that this user might be better off creating a new account." I can only say to you what I said to him. Were I to create a new account without being unblocked, that would be block evasion. I'm not going to do that.

Meanwhile, can you please allow me to e-mail on Wikinews. It's pretty pointless having a block since i can just use Wikisource but it is irritating.

Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite what Shaka rightly sees as assholishness, I think we can let the guy have a chance. It might be wise to run a quiet CU every few months, though. First sign of trouble and he ain't coming back. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur. He hasn't been disruptive here (yet, at least), so he shouldn't be blocked. A checkuser could be made at the first sign of suspicious activity. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved FT2

I don't often post here, but do so as a WikiNews occasional editor, and the Wikimedian most familiar with the case.

One line version: Poetlister was, in his time on Wikipedia, one of the most unscrupulous of the serious sock-users we have had. I'm aware that is a damning verdict.

Poetlister edits profusely and indeed (often) positively. However his edits were often socked, stacked, often POV pushing, and on minor projects (after his ban on Wikipedia) often used as a bridge to facilitate a stepping stone somewhere else.

For example, when banned on one project he tried to return by positive editing via another minor project - in that case WikiQuote. He had previously gained adminship on Wikipedia, he has run a large number of sock-puppets on multiple sites; he knows how to play games "behind the scenes" and play people off against each other or manipulate the impressionable and unaware; he knew how to edit in a way that got him high approval at Wikiquote. Gaining sysophood and later cratship there, he leveraged those to a campaign that he was wrongly banned elsewhere, and (partly because there was no obvious misconduct recently) was given a second chance in May 2008.

It didn't last long. By August 2008 I was in contact with WMF, checkusers and stewards on 5 projects, and external persons Poetlister had impersonated on Wikipedia and elsewhere, ascertaining the extent of his sock ring.

Wikiquote, the smaller project he had used to return and that had trusted him, was by that time riddled with 3 admin-accounts and a checkuser-sock of his. And a new sock ring of almost a dozen socks on Wikipedia. The checkuser sock had been used to check his own sock run through selected proxies would be unlikely to be identified as a sock, at Wikiquote RFA. So much for trust.

Until conclusively challenged, Poetlister tried to use his stance on those projects to argue that anyone else was against him for no good reason and seek others to battle for him.

His stance right to the end (in email at that point) was completely unrepentant. He affected care and self-pity - where useful for his own benefit - and affected the attitudes and personas needed to convince others to enable and trust him, but so far as I could assess under the surface, he at no time showed any actual genuine care regarding harm done to any wiki-project, any users falsely accused, any third parties impersonated or potentially harmed, his own family who suffered as a result, or indeed anyone - except himself.

John Vandenberg (enwiki Arbcom) and Aphaia (wikiquote Checkuser) are worth speaking to if this last area needs discussion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Poetlister would be a very bad idea, and I think previous incidents indicate that. Tiptoety ^talk 06:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Article published with massive factual accuracy problems

Please see this. Whoever reviewed - I've made a point of not looking - made a serious cockup on this one. The issues are serious enough to raise them here - are people taking reviewing seriously enough? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly take reviewing very seriously, and I'm sure most other reviewers feel the same way about it. I think inaccuracies like these are going to happen once in a while, as we're only humans, and even the most competent reviewer might forget to check for a key detail, due to distraction by other things, fatigue, etc. (e.g. I published an article with some VOA-POV problems recently and didn't notice it until later due to being tired.) One way we can help reduce the chance of this happening again is to have two people, not one, check the article and only publish it if they both think it's OK. (That would significantly increase already long waits in the review queue, though.) Tempodivalse [talk] 15:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We all screw things up, it was the amount of mistakes packed into such a short article that made me bring this up. I don't think I blame the reviewer as such - well, obviously the reviewer bears the blame, but there's more to it. This article should never have slipped through the net. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed it, and none of the teams ever made it to the top, as it states by NASA. Actuallyt to be honest, I thought I had fixed all that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd para from NASA states that the team managed it four times in the first two days. It was only on the third day that no-one managed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Jimmy Wales on AP, Wikipedia and (briefly) Wikinews

This may be of interest to people: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=173537 the wub "?!" 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FTA "Wales: Wikinews has struggled for years, and you identify one of the key reasons for it. Wikinews remains an experiment which has yet to fulfill its potential."

Well yea we've strugled because Wikipedia wont (As Per Usual) enforce its own rules. Oh, and because no one wants to even attempt to help us (Those that claim otherwise: Google News, nuff said) --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Task Force: Expanded Content - Thinks Wikinews is useless

"Topical information (Wikinews): Given that Wikipedia already provides topical content, does its presence precludes the need for Wikinews? If not why not? If so, what should be done with Wikinews?" FTFA. Sigh, I hate people. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strategy:Thread:Talk:Task force/Expanding Content/Wikinews is useless, huh? - I rage
• Strategy:Thread:Talk:Task force/Expanding Content/"Concerning" language in reference to Wikinews BrianMc rages --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  I was trying to be somewhat diplomatic while extremely pissed off. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had my say too and I invite everyone else to post their views --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I see now I wasn't the only person who read that as "Wikinews isn't useful". Tempodivalse [talk] 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(<--)I may not be the most active user, but Wikinews, useless!? That makes me sick. And here I am am planning on resurrecting Audio Wikinews in a new format, when the WMF says this project is useless... --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Rant #1

• Really, what the hell is it with these people? "Policy wonks" is the polite label. I don't doubt the WMF staff are making a well-meaning contribution to the stratergy (sic) concept; but, every 'tard from Wikipedia who has been beaten about this crap before seems to have found a home where they can demonstrate why they're the slimy little *****bleeeeeeeeeps***** who used to be dropped in Usenet killfiles for wanking instead of moving things forward. I even saw the name River in some of the associated pages. Is that the bitch that stood for board on a platform of closing everything but Wikipedia? I tell ya, 'some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Struck per request; N.B. Comment is a quote from a comedian whose name currently escapes me. This was intended as an expression of frustration and anger — not an intent to kill, or wish for others to do so. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If i recall, she proposed closing only us (she's active with toolserver and dev side of things I think). It was someone else who wanted to close everything. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • See, it's not all the WMF staff, it's just a select few vocal screw ups. People like Jimbo (granted he isn't WMF any more) simply don't help our cause. What they should be saying instead of "lets shut down Wikinews" is "Lets see if we can get the Wikipedia people to put the news in the CORRECT location" and get the WP Cabal to crack down on their own and send them over here. I know our system isn't the same, but it isn't that fuckin difficult. The reason why we struggle to gain momentum is that we have to KEEP WORKING and not slack off like the fucks on Wikipedia. WP can boast about it's 3 million articles, because they are all "relevant" (Depending on what you're looking up). WN, all people care about is how many articles we publish in the last 24 hours. It's hard work people, but for the fact that we put out (on average) 1 article per day for every 3 active users, we don't do such a bad job. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That (above comment) does seem about right... I mean Wikipedia is a great project, but so is Wikinews, so is Simple English, so is Wiktionary, and so are all the WMF projects, but all projects are volunteer work and do require effort to maintain. I’ve been doing some audio at Wiktionary for pronunciations, and that’s effort for the most backed up Category I’ve seen since Wikipedia’s Clean-up. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. WMF should apologize to us IMO. Really I don't know what to say here, but I did reply to the thread above. What an insult to us. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jason, please stop mixing up the Wikimedia Foundation with random plonkers from Wikipedia. Remember, even Jimmy isn't really WMF anymore; he's more focussed on Wikia and the 'rubber-chicken circuit'. Wikipedians do have a tendency to just see the one project; they are not expressing WMF policy in doing so, just ignorance, stupidity, selfishness, and any other grab-bag of adjectives you may care to append. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it important to point out that despite the presentation as "WMF should apologize to us..." or "Wikimedia says this project is useless", the WMF didn't say that. It's a QUESTION. The very idea of those questions is to stir discussion. It appears to be working. WMF has not said Wikinews is useless. I have tried over and over to get Wikinews folks to participate in strategic planning, with multiple posts here and personal approaches. User:Tempodivalse is a valued contributor who has given countless hours to the strategy project and has represented you well there, but the only way to have a voice in the process is to show up. I hope that those of you who have ranted will choose to remain engaged. I really, truly do hope so. Philippe (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

    With less than 20 people active every day it really should be understandable why there is less Wikinews participation. Wikipedia has the luxury of being able to see contributors take a break long enough to give the strategy process the attention it deserves. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox DPL issue

I created {{Football}} today from the corresponding sport infobox. It would appear many infoboxes haven't been updated to handle Flagged Revisions, or to restrict listed pages to the main namespace.

If you're using an infobox, please check the Wikicode to see the DPL uses stablepages. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more suprised to hear that any of the infoboxes/portals use stable pages only. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Seriously, without it there is an avenue of abuse. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)